The REAL Benghazi Scandal

Seems like there indeed a Benghazi Scandal, just that it is not quite the one the Republicans and their goofball supporters were claiming.

See, the Republicans and those that suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome (and can’t help themselves), were jumping up and down screeching from the rafters that what happened in Benghazi was one of the all time great failures by an administration to protect it’s foreign service workers and diplomats. Then they compounded this lie by trying (in a classic case of projection) that the administration politicized the response to the attack in order to enhance it’s chances for re-election in the 2012 Presidential election.

Well it does seem there was some politicization of the attack, yet this politicization of the attack came not from Democrats but from Republicans and that it was Republicans who shamefully used the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other diplomatic personnel as ways to not only try to win the November election but also have cynically used these deaths to increase their own fund raising, disrupt President Obama’s second term agenda, and take the public’s eyes off of the fact that these people simply refuse to govern responsibly.

In all seriousness, how can Republicans and their supporters claim be so up in arms when many of the same critics of the Obama administration simply sat on their hands, during the Bush Administration when there were thirteen (yep, that’s thirteen) attacks on consular and diplomatic services which were more deadly than Benghazi. I mean, how can one see that (and the incidents which occurred) and not say that this entire clown show (and I use this term because really… that is what it is), is NOT a partisan political effort. Had these folks been outraged to these levels during these previous incidents I would not complain about this obviously partisan attack, but, they weren’t. When Republicans were in charge apparently these failures didn’t warrant this kind of poutrage.

Then, as if this is not enough, Republicans and their goofy supporters started screaming that this was a cover-up on a scale larger than Watergate. Ok, now this should give everyone pause to consider the pure partisan hatred expressed by this charge. Watergate was a scandal because the President of the United States actually ordered a Criminal Break-in of Democratic Party Headquarters. In Watergate you had the President of the U.S. actually ordering an illegal activity.

In Benghazi, you had failures by the State Department to adequately provide security for a consular mission in the middle of a war-torn and chaotic area. The President did not order Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi, the Ambassador decided to go on his own. The White House did not orchestrate a terror attack on the consulate. In no way did the White House or the Administration do anything even bordering on illegal as did the Nixon White House during Watergate.

BUT further than that, the Republicans and their charges were so worked up into a frothy state that they then went on to produce “leaked” emails saying that the White House actually orchestrated a change in talking points to eliminate all references to involvement by al-Qaeda and that they did this to knowingly deceive the public. They maintain that the President had stated that they had “defeated” al-Qaeda and felt that if word of an al-Qaeda attack had gotten out before the election it would have meant trouble for the President’s re-election efforts.

As one sufferer of Obama Derangement Syndrome stated:

“The Obama administration then lied about lying through White House spokesmen, Jay Carney, who insisted that the White House did not force any substantive changes to the CIA talking points which originally sourced the attack to Islamists.”

Unfortunately for the Republicans, it turns out that these comments aren’t quite true and by the term “aren’t quite true” I mean that they are outright lies.

First of all the President when discussing al-Qaeda worldwide never claimed (to my knowledge) that they were utterly defeated. He has made the claim (and rightly so) that in Af-Pak that al-Qaeda has been weakened and that their command structure has been severely compromised but he did not say they were defeated (as has been claimed):

Here is President Obama in 2011 about al-Qaeda - 

In announcing Osama bin Laden"s death Sunday night, President Barack Obama said U.S. military and counterterrorism professionals have "made great strides” in the effort to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al-Qaida.

But terrorism experts, U.S. officials and Obama himself say that despite progress in capturing or killing key al-Qaida leaders, the group is still a force in international terrorism.

"There's no doubt that al-Qaida will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will— remain vigilant at home and abroad,” Obama said. "...The cause of securing our country is not complete."

AND now it turns out that claims that the White House orchestrated a CIA cover-up… OHOH it turns out that those “leaks” quoted by Republicans were actually FABRICATIONS of emails created by… the Republicans themselves. CBS News is Reporting:

“The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.

Republicans have charged that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real emails late Wednesday.”

Apparently the wording of emails from Victoria Nuland and Ben Rhodes were altered to say different things than what the Republicans claimed and that CBS found:

“The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.

Republicans have charged that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real emails late Wednesday….”

…the Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."
The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

The CIA agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the CIA's original version, eliminating references to al Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence that the White House orchestrated the changes.

This story pretty much wipes out the claims the Republicans and their supporters have made regarding any sort of a cover-up.

The bottom line is that no matter what the truth is, Republicans and their long suffering supporters just can’t accept the truth. They continue even in the face of evidence to the contrary to simply ignore reality and rather, just blindly spout talking points. Is that a scandal in itself? Certainly not, that is just plain and simple stupidity.

The real scandal here is two-fold.

The First is that the Republicans actually altered emails and then convened a House investigation based on these altered emails. Simply put, they lied about the content of the emails, fraudulently changed that content and then have wasted taxpayer funds in a blatantly partisan attack on the President of the United States and why, just so they could increase Fund Raising for their members AND so that they could disrupt on going Administration efforts to govern this nation. I do believe that deceiving the American public like this should be investigated and those responsible for this should be held accountable.

Second, once again this shows why no one can take criticism by Republicans or their ODS suffering drones seriously. I mean despite the fact that they are constantly re-buffed by reality, they continue to soldier on in a fantasy world driven only by hatred of President Barack Obama and the fact that in the last election they were soundly defeated. And more over, this hatred has led to the Republicans completely abrogating their duties to the American people as the controlling party of the House of Representatives. They simply refuse to deal with the problems facing our nation and instead are focusing on useless legislation like pointless vote after vote after vote on repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act, or refusing to even institute background checks on certifiable lunatics and criminals so that these people can buy weapons.

This is the real scandal about Benghazi – a blatant political attempt to undermine the President and the Government of the United States through lies and forgery by Republicans and their operatives. Now that this scandal is coming to light it will be interesting to watching these folks scurry around now that a light is being shined on them.

More Benghazi Bull&#*

We have been getting a lot of garbage coming from what I like to call Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) “dog and pony show” about Benghazi and the nonsense that the Republican’s and their goofy surrogates are spewing out regarding this. It would be one thing if they actually cared about this incident AND were going to use hearings to better reform the processes in the way the State Department operates and handles security. But what Issa is actually doing is nothing but a complete clown show of a hack job all in an effort to both derail a potential Hillary Clinton Presidential run in 2016, raise funds for the G.O.P. ,  and disrupt any agenda that President Barak Obama might have.

Pretty strong words? Sure. But honestly, I am sick and tired of this nonsense and what it is doing to the United States and our polity. So let’s just see what the Republicans and their goofy surrogates are whining about.

First of all, interestingly enough, while Republicans are calling this “the worst thing evah” (Spelling mistake intentional), they were and are remarkably silent about their own record in the area of attacks on U.S. diplomatic and consular officials.

Bob Cesca writing at HuffPo, points out Republican hypocrisy, when America suffered thirteen (that’s 13) diplomatic and consular attacks during the Bush years and none of the modern day inquisitors involved had very little to say regarding them. Given that, how can we take them or their charges seriously? Did they all of a sudden gain concern for our diplomats? Of course not, it is pretty obvious to anyone that this thing is political theatre and that it is simply a partisan hack job for the reasons stated above.

So let’s break down some of this partisan hackery (new word) even further. First of all, I think it is important for everyone to read the 39 page findings of the Independent review board convened by the State Dept. and run by Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering. This will put an end to the caterwauling and nonsensical lies spread by Republicans and their goofball supporters.

For instance, Republicans and their goofy supporters claim that if only the U.S. had “sent in the marines” Ambassador Stevens and the four American operatives would still be alive. And further, not only do they claim that the nothing happened, but they actually claim that someone (probably the evil secret Muslim President Barak Hussein Obama </snark>) told U.S. forces to “stand down”.

Well the review board debunks this lie with their action report (tough reading but important) of the night of Sept. 11^th, 2012 on pages 18 – 28 of the report. First of all, one must remember that the consular post in Benghazi was a small one with seven U.S. diplomatic personnel. There were other American assets in the area and these assets DID arrive to help it’s just that they were too late to stop the area from being overrun and the Ambassador and Information Management Officer Smith from dying of smoke inhalation.

Again, read these heartbreaking pages. There was absolutely no interference from Washington concerning response to the pleas for help coming from the Consulate. It is simply amazing to me that the Republicans and their drones would actually make this charge. Everyone did what they had to do once the attack was under way.

Now let’s take on some more of the partisan lies spread by those who would politicize the death of four Americans for their own fundraising and political agendas. Another lie these folks like to spread is concerning whether the President called it terrorism or not, and was that politically motivated. To answer the second part first, I have no doubt that there was some political gamesmanship by the White House here. It is true that certainly having a diplomatic outpost overrun by an al-Qaeda affiliate would look bad for the President, it is an extreme stretch to think it would have ruined the President’s re-election efforts. I can understand his reticence to call this a coordinated operation by al-Qaeda. That said, I don’t see any evidence of any kind of cover-up.

The President and his administration did not say that al-Qaeda worldwide had been defeated as the liars maintain. What they had said was that al-Qaeda in Af-Pak had suffered some very serious losses particularly to it’s leadership cadres and that it was severely weakened in those areas. No one denied that al-Qaeda affiliates were still at large and causing massive amounts of trouble wherever they went, so there goes that piece of nonsense.

On to the charge that the President never said it was “terrorism”. The Washington Post fact checkers say admit that while he did refer to “acts of terror” in a speech on Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden, he was being vague and then calls him out for denying he was talking about this days later in an interview. Now, I watched this interview, and no where do I see how the Washington Post came to their conclusions. What I see is a President that is taking a measured approach to a tough situation and waiting for more information to come in before racing to judgment.

On a personal note, this has to be one of the biggest steaming piles of horse manure used in what has become this political circus. Frankly, I don’t give a flying f*&% whether he called this a terror attack or he called it a freakin’ hamburger. It’s just not that important. It really isn’t. What is important is that someone get the facts, and then acts to either A) Bring the killers to justice and B) fixes this to make sure that it never happens again.

Besides what do these dumbasses actually think he was talking about when he referred to “acts of terror” in that speech? Do they think he was talking about egg throwing in New York? For goodness sakes, just how dumb do you have to be to not understand the President was talking about this attack? As my mom liked to say, these folks have “rocks in their heads”.

And how silly has Issa’s sideshow gotten. Well, first he wouldn’t let Ambassador Pickering testify after demanding that the Ambassador do testify. Then he says “Well, we will only let the Ambassador testify – if it’s in Private NOT in Public.

Here is Darrell Issa, talking about how he “doesn’t want this hearing to be a show”:

"The fact is, we don't want to have some sort of a stage show. We had fact witnesses. They testified. We have the Ambassador and Admiral Mullen who conducted and oversaw the [independent review]. We're inviting them on Monday. We'll go through, not in front of the public, but in a nonpartisan way.

So wait a minute, this whole big PUBLIC hearing really should be only conducted in PRIVATE? HUH????

Now, were there mistakes made here by the Administration that should have been reviewed. Absolutely. And Secretary Clinton conducted just such a review. Anyone reading it can see just how critical that review was. Is there a discussion to be had concerning American security in countries that are unstable and have active al-Qaeda affiliates in them? Absolutely.

Was there a White House cover-up about this? Not in the slightest. Some idiots have even gone so far as to say this is worse than Watergate. Those folks really should check themselves into some kind of mental health institution as their faculties for reason seem to have gone awry. It’s incredible. Here we have people comparing a criminal break-in ordered by the President himself, to some severe mistakes made by senior State Dept. individuals. The two are not even close to being on the same level.

And this is why Republicans and their goofy supporters should never be elected to any office higher than that of Park Bathroom attendant. Because, all they seem to do is waste people’s time with manufactured scandals and irrelevant congressional votes. Just today, the Republicans voted for the 37^th time to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act even though they know that there is no possible way it will get through the Senate and if it did that, the President would simply veto it (and they don’t have the votes to overturn). It’s just a WASTE. OF. TIME.

Meanwhile, instead the House could be working on much more pressing issues such as dealing with Climate Change, Gun Violence, Joblessness, Improving our infrastructure, real immigration reform, and so forth. But no. Not these folks. They have to work on screeching about Benghazi, or yammering about the IRS or any other daily manufactured outrage. These people and their supporters are a bunch of hacks, and honestly their actions do nothing but disrupt the governance of the United States.

I suggest writing to your local Representative and tell them to get on with actually working with the President and Democrats instead of letting the country suffer so that they can achieve their own partisan political ends. It’s nonsense and it needs to stop. NOW!

President Obama, America, and the Middle East… Pew Numbers are in.

There is a new Pew Poll out (dated 5/09/13) regarding the Middle East, America, President Obama and attitudes regarding the Peace Process.

Here are some of the highlights…

In Israel – Despite claims by the bigots on the Right and divestment people on the Left, Israel is indeed a friend of the U.S. Our nation (the U.S.) enjoys an 83% favorability rating in the eyes of Israelis. In contrast the U.S. only has a 16% favorability rating amongst Palestinians. This is important to point out since the anti-Semites and Lunatic Fringe inhabitants tend to think that Israelis are lukewarm to America at best, particularly since President Obama has been in the White House.

Of course there are more numbers than this. Despite the deranged bleating of our own (the Zionist) Right Wing a strong majority of Israelis (82%) feel that U.S. foreign policy is either Fair (47%) or Favors Israel (35%), not too bad a rating for an administration who (according to the Lunatic Fringe) supports the Muslim Brotherhood and Jihad against Jews.

But there’s more. According to the poll, President Obama enjoys a 61% Approval rating amongst Israelis with only 36% saying they don’t approve. Here are the Pew Findings:

“Israelis and Palestinians also differ on views of Obama. About six-in-ten (61%) Israelis express confidence in the American president to do the right thing regarding world affairs, up from 49% in 2011. In the Palestinian territories, just 15% have confidence in Obama, while 82% have little or no confidence in him.

In Israel, opinions of Obama are far more positive among Jews than among Arabs. More than six-in-ten (64%) Jews express confidence in the American president, compared with about half (48%) of Arabs.

Secular Jews in Israel are especially positive in their views of Obama. About seven-in-ten (71%) secular Jews have confidence in Obama to do the right thing when it comes to world affairs, compared with 56% of Israeli Jews who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox.”

Overall (as the numbers show) it seems that Israelis in general and Israelis Jews in particular understand that President Obama is a strong friend to Israel. But, here was an interesting number that I didn’t expect to see and was heartened by… Strong pluralities of both Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews feel that the Presidents role in peace negotiations… wait for it… SHOULD BE LARGER.

Now for some other numbers.




On the Peace process things are not quite as rosy. In answer to questions regarding favorability of Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad all three received favorable views but Islamic Jihad was favorably viewed by 56% of the Palestinian Polity. This is hardly encouraging since both Hamas and Islamic Jihad advocate for the elimination of Jews both in the Middle East and in the World.

Further, while 50% (50-38%)  of Israelis think that they can live peacefully with their Palestinian neighbors in a Two State relationship, only 14% of Palestinians think the same way. Moreover a plurality – 45% of Palestinians think that Armed Struggle is the best way to gain a state, they say this more than any other single option and given the favorability of Islamic Jihad – that is seemingly the way that they would go.

As for the settlements, a plurality of Israelis think that they harm Israeli security (42%) while a minority (27%) think that they help. Amongst the Arabs this number is (4% vs. 84% - help to hurt ratio). BUT one thing that they are doing, as can be seen from the numbers is contributing to Israel’s lack of favorable numbers with it’s E.U. trading partners.

 

Generally what we are seeing here is a strong trend of Pro-American favorability and sympathy amongst Israelis towards the U.S. while there is a growing antipathy amongst the Palestinian population. The disturbing numbers are the Palestinian numbers which reflect a turn back towards radical failed means to achieve statehood and a simple non-interest in seeing a compromise solution.

Still, it is heartening to see that BOTH Israelis and Palestinians favor a larger presence by the Obama Administration in particular and by the American government in general. As I have long maintained the current Administration is a strong friend to Israel and I believe now we can see that the Israelis are realizing this as well.

"Atem Lo Lavad" - The President in Jerusalem

There are times when one can truly enjoy political speeches and feel that a speech has historic ramifications, that it is not just some stump speech made for press releases. Earlier today in Jerusalem, I think President Obama made one of these speeches. I had the pleasure of listening to President via POTUS and I heard the enthusiasm of the Israeli crowd that greeted his comments.

Of course, what everyone will remember about this speech is when President Obama uttered the words "Atem Lo Lavad" - "You are not alone" to thunderous applause from the crowd.

Once again I have to give credit to the Transcript Editors at Daily Kos for their transcript of the President's Speech in J'Slem.

Here is context and that passage:

For young Israelis, I know that these issues of security are rooted in an experience that is even more fundamental than the pressing threat of the day. You live in a neighborhood where many of your neighbors have rejected your right to exist. Your grandparents had to risk their lives and all they had to make a place for themselves in this world. Your parents lived through war after war to ensure the survival of the Jewish state. Your children grow up knowing that people they have never met hate them because of who they are, in a region that is changing underneath your feet.

So that is what I think about when Israel is faced with these challenges – that sense of an Israel that is surrounded by many in this region who reject it, and many in the world who refuse to accept it. That is why the security of the Jewish people in Israel is so important – because it can never be taken for granted. But make no mistake: those who adhere to the ideology of rejecting Israel’s right to exist might as well reject the earth beneath them and the sky above, because Israel is not going anywhere. Today, I want to tell you – particularly the young people – that so long as there is a United States of America, Ah-tem lo lah-vahd.(vb1 emphasis)

But what struck me as much as this speech was the thunderous applause from the Israeli students particularly when the President spoke of Peace. Remember one difference between these students and students in America. For the most part, these students are Veterans of the Military. In Israel, most people go into the Armed Services right after High School and THEN go to college. So an important distinction was that he was able to talk to people that know what conflict and War are about first hand.

In listening to the speech, there was not silence (no matter what lies the Right Wing tells) regarding his calls for a Two Street Solution. In fact, I heard strong applause for those words. Here are some that I felt spoke to the heart of the matter:

I know Israel has taken risks for peace. Brave leaders – Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin –reached treaties with two of your neighbors. You made credible proposals to the Palestinians at Annapolis. You withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon, and then faced terror and rockets. Across the region, you have extended a hand of friendship, and too often have been confronted with the ugly reality of anti-Semitism. So I believe that the Israeli people do want peace, and you have every right to be skeptical that it can be achieved.

But today, Israel is at a crossroads. It can be tempting to put aside the frustrations and sacrifices that come with the pursuit of peace – particularly when an Iron Dome repels rockets, barriers keep out suicide bombers, and so many other pressing issues demand your attention. And I know that only Israelis can make the fundamental decisions about your country’s future.

I also know that not everyone in this hall will agree with what I have to say about peace. I recognize that there are those who are not simply skeptical about peace, but question its underlying premise, and that’s a part of democracy and the discourse between our two countries. But it is important to be open and honest with one another. Politically, given the strong bipartisan support for Israel in America, the easiest thing for me to do would be to put this issue aside, and express unconditional support for whatever Israel decides to do. But I want you to know that I speak to you as a friend who is deeply concerned and committed to your future, and I ask you to consider three points.

First, peace is necessary. Indeed, it is the only path to true security. You can be the generation that permanently secures the Zionist dream, or you can face a growing challenge to its future. Given the demographics west of the Jordan River, the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine. (vb1 emphasis) Given the frustration in the international community, Israel must reverse an undertow of isolation. And given the march of technology, the only way to truly protect the Israeli people is through the absence of war – because no wall is high enough, and no Iron Dome is strong enough, to stop every enemy from inflicting harm.

This was strongly applauded, and rightly so. The President is talking about securing the Zionist dream of David Ben Gurion. A dream that saw Israel as both Jewish AND Democratic. And the President is absolutely 100% right. As the great Abba Eban once said:

1. Israel can be a Democratic State
2. Israel can be a Jewish State
or
3. Israel can be a State from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. 

But Israel can only be two of the three, It cannot be all of them unless it is willing to destroy it's very soul through massive ethnic cleansing, and then honestly... what kind of democracy would it really be then, more than that what kind of Jewish State would it really be?

Of course the President is well aware of what he is dealing with when it comes to asking the Israelis to make Peace with the Palestinians. I am bolding some of the important things I think need to be emphasized.

Only you can determine what kind of democracy you will have. But remember that as you make these decisions, you will define not simply the future of your relationship with the Palestinians – you will define the future of Israel as well. As Ariel Sharon said, “It is impossible to have a Jewish, democratic state and at the same time to control all of Eretz Israel. If we insist on fulfilling the dream in its entirety, we are liable to lose it all.” Or, from a different perspective, think of what David Grossman said shortly after losing his son, as he described the necessity of peace – “a peace of no choice” he said, “must be approached with the same determination and creativity as one approaches a war of no choice.”

"Of course, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is dedicated to its destruction."

A direct reference to understanding that Hamas is certainly no partner for Peace and until they undergo transformative changes, never will be.

...Negotiations will be necessary, but there is little secret about where they must lead – two states for two peoples. There will be differences about how to get there, and hard choices along the way. Arab States must adapt to a world that has changed. The days when they could condemn Israel to distract their people from a lack of opportunity are over. Now is the time for the Arab World to take steps toward normalized relations with Israel. Meanwhile, Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state, and that Israelis have the right to insist upon their security. Israelis must recognize that continued settlement activity is counterproductive to the cause of peace, and that an independent Palestine must be viable– that real borders will have to be drawn. I’ve suggested principles on territory and security that I believe can be the basis for talks. But for the moment, put aside the plans and process. I ask you, instead, to think about what can be done to build trust between people.

Over all, what can I say... I have go with "Kol HaKavod Mr. President". One thing that is interesting is the Times of Israel OP-ED piece that leads on their Front Page:

The Stirring Speech of a Left Wing Zionist

By the end, the students were applauding almost every sentence. They stood and cheered when it was over, roaring their approval. 

Barack Obama, widely perceived by Israelis before this visit as a cold president, a leader dutifully supporting Israel but lacking any real empathy for it, transformed that image in the course of the powerhouse central address of his visit here on Thursday afternoon — for the 1,000 ecstatic young Israelis in Jerusalem’s International Conference Center, and doubtless for many, many Israelis watching on live television nationwide.

He knew, he told the listening Israelis, that you live in a region in which many have rejected your very right to exist. He knew, he said, that the security of the Jewish people in Israel cannot be taken for granted. He knew Israel had seized opportunities for peace with Egypt and Jordan under Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin, and tried hard to make peace with the Palestinians, including under Ehud Olmert at Annapolis. He knew that the 2000 Lebanon pullout and the 2005 Gaza withdrawal had been met with rocket fire, and that “the hand of friendship” had too often been met with rejectionism and terror.

He knew. He understood. He empathized. And yet, he argued, there was no choice but to keep trying. A democratic, Jewish Israel requires a Palestinian state, he said. He quoted Ariel Sharon — seek to maintain the entire Land of Israel and you risk losing it all. The Palestinians deserve a state, he said. Israelis deserve it. It’s the only path to security, to an end to isolation, to that better future.

Being that this is a Center / Center Left Zionist site... this is what we have been saying about the President all along. He IS a Zionist, he just does not define his Zionism by the terms that Rightists and/or Republicans here in the U.S.insist upon. Frankly, he shouldn't either. Just because the Rightists and their cadres insist on something, doesn't mean it has to be and if they are too stupid to realize this... well that's their problem.

Kudos Mr. President. Once again you make America Proud.

We improve our Gene Pool by Marrying Women who are better than we are... Musing by Pres. Obama and PM Netanyahu

One more time I have to thank the transcripts editors at Daily Kos for the complete transcript on the joint press conference with President Obama and PM Netanyahu. Which included this gem:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Well, thank you, Prime Minister Netanyahu, for your kind words and for your wonderful welcome here today.  And I want to express a special thanks to Sara as well as your two sons for their warmth and hospitality.  It was wonderful to see them.  They are -- I did inform the Prime Minister that they are very good-looking young men who clearly got their looks from their mother.  (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU:  Well, I can say the same of your daughters.  (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  This is true.  Our goal is to improve our gene pool by marrying women who are better than we are.

Being in one of those marriages (marrying out of my looks class), I can appreciate the sentiment that these men express here and I can appreciate the humor and good will that goes into these comments. 

On a more serious note, it seems like the discussions between the President and Mr. Netanyahu went well.

Some excerpts:

In the opening statements:

From Mr. Netanyahu:

Let me conclude, Mr. President, on a personal note.  I know how valuable the time and the energy is of the American President, of yourself.  This is the 10th time that we have met since you became President and since I became Prime Minister.  You’ve chosen Israel as your first venue in your visit, your foreign visit in your second term.  I want to thank you for the investment you have made in our relationship and in strengthening the friendship and alliance between our two countries.  It is deeply, deeply appreciated.

 From President Obama:

As Bibi mentioned, this is our 10th meeting.  We’ve spent more time together, working together, than I have with any leader.  And this speaks to the closeness of our two nations, the interests and the values that we share, and the depth and breadth of the ties between our two peoples.

As leaders, our most solemn responsibility is the security of our people -- that’s job number one.  My job as President of the United States, first and foremost, is to keep the American people safe.  Bibi, as Prime Minister, your first task is to keep the people of Israel safe.  And Israel’s security needs are truly unique, as I’ve seen myself.  In past trips I visited villages near the Blue Line.  I’ve walked through Israeli homes devastated by Hezbollah rockets.  I’ve stood in Sderot, and met with children who simply want to grow up free from fear.  And flying in today, I saw again how Israel’s security can be measured in mere miles and minutes.

As President, I’ve, therefore, made it clear America’s commitment to the security of the State of Israel is a solemn obligation, and the security of Israel is non-negotiable.

to that end the President made this announcement:

I’m also pleased to announce that we will take steps to ensure that there’s no interruption of funding for Iron Dome. As a result of decisions that I made last year, Israel will receive approximately $200 million this fiscal year and we will continue to work with Congress on future funding of Iron Dome.  These are further reminders that we will help to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge so that Israel can defend itself, by itself, against any threat.

So with the passage of the Senate Bill on spending today to blunt some of the most egregious aspects of the Republican sequester, I guess the President will be clearing the way for continued funding of Iron Dome. That is important given the instability and advances in the region by Iranian Hegemonistic forces.

On Egypt:

With Egypt going broke, the U.S. has some tough choices to make. It seems that it has made the call to continue to support the Egyptians democratic choice of government, the government of President Morsi, but has hinged aid (which Egypt desperately needs) on that government cutting off the flow of arms to Hamas and for it's adherence to the Peace Treaty with Israel. Egypt so far has done just that. Despite it's crazy rhetoric, it by and large has adhered to the agreements of the treaty and even just last week shut down tunnels going into Gaza. Oh and earlier this week the Egyptians just arrested Seven Palestinians who were stealing uniforms from Egypt to use to plan an attack.

And since the only alternative is to cut off the Egyptian funding which would then lead to Egypt seeking funds from Iran and it's allies, (imagine what the Egyptians would do in that case), the President in my view is doing the right thing here. Adhering to the Democratic wishes of it's neighbor AND ensuring the well being of it's allies.

As the President said:

We also reaffirmed the importance of ensuring Israel’s security given the changes and uncertainty in the region.  As the United States supports the Egyptian people in their historic transition to democracy, we continue to underscore the necessity of Egypt contributing to regional security, preventing Hamas from rearming and upholding its peace treaty with Israel.

 On Syria: 

The President spoke earnestly about Syria particularly in light of reports that there was a chemical weapons attack in Syria by Rebel Forces. He was asked what he planned to do about it, and said... (in short) that he wants to gather more information regarding what happened. A reasonable response as these reports are new. 

With respect to chemical weapons, we intend to investigate thoroughly exactly what happened.  Obviously, in Syria right now you've got a war zone.  You have information that's filtered out, but we have to make sure that we know exactly what happened -- what was the nature of the incident, what can we document, what can we prove.  So I've instructed my teams to work closely with all of the countries in the region and international organizations and institutions to find out precisely whether or not this red line was crossed.

I will note, without at this point having all the facts before me, that we know the Syrian government has the capacity to carry out chemical weapon attacks.  We know that there are those in the Syrian government who have expressed a willingness to use chemical weapons if necessary to protect themselves.  I am deeply skeptical of any claim that, in fact, it was the opposition that used chemical weapons.  Everybody who knows the facts of the chemical weapon stockpiles inside Syria as well as the Syrian government's capabilities I think would question those claims.  But I know that they're floating out there right now.

The broader point is, is that once we establish the facts I have made clear that the use of chemical weapons is a game changer.  And I won't make an announcement today about next steps because I think we have to gather the facts.  But I do think that when you start seeing weapons that can cause potential devastation and mass casualties and you let that genie out of the bottle, then you are looking potentially at even more horrific scenes than we've already seen in Syria.  And the international community has to act on that additional information.

 On Iran and Security

Basically the President and the PM agreed here that Iran is about a year from developing a bomb.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU:  I think that there's a misunderstanding about time.  If Iran decides to go for a nuclear weapon -- that is, to actually manufacture the weapon -- then it probably -- then it would take them about a year.  I think that's correct.  They could defer that a long time but still get through the enrichment process -- that is, to make a weapon you need two things; you need enriched uranium of a critical amount and then you need a weapon.  You can't have the weapon without the enriched uranium, but you can have the enriched uranium without the weapon.

Iran right now is enriching uranium.  It’s pursuing it.  It hasn’t yet reached the red line that I had described in my speech at the U.N. -- they're getting closer, though.

And the question of manufacturing the weapon is a different thing.  The President said correctly that we have -- on these issues that are a little arcane, they sound a little detailed to you -- but on these matters we share information and we have a common assessment.  We have a common assessment.

In any case, Iran gets to an immunity zone when they get through the enrichment process, in our view -- in our view -- and whatever time is left, there's not a lot of time.  And every day that passes diminishes it.  But we do have a common assessment.  On the schedules, on intelligence, we share that intelligence and we don't have any argument about it.  I think it's important to state that clearly.

I think that people should get to know President Obama the way I've gotten to know.  And I think you've just heard something that is very meaningful.  It may have escaped you, but it hasn't escaped me.  And that is the President announced that in addition to all the aid that his administration has provided -- including Iron Dome, including defense funding for Israel during very difficult times -- he has announced that we are going to begin talks on another 10-year process arrangement to ensure American military assistance to Israel.  I think this is very significant.

 Please read this whole transcript it is very telling and very important.

The President's Trip - An Opinion

The President is in Israel and I for one think this trip is a very positive reinforcement of the President's Pro-Israel, Pro-Two State agenda. For me, the trip cements some opinions of the President that I have held from the very beginning that President Obama is a great and solid friend to both Israel and the Jewish people.

What does this trip tell me?

1. Well, the President is now in his second term. He is done campaigning. He certainly didn't have to make this trip, he doesn't need the help from Jewish voters in swing states anymore.. YET... he still goes to Israel to re-affirm our friendship and commitments to Israel and it's security. Unlike the screeching of Jennifer Rubin and her usual nonsense (I still can't figure out how anyone who gets everything so wrong manages to have a column at the Washington Post but we'll leave that for another day), the President's words are very important.

In his speeches and discussions today, the President laid his understanding of exactly what the State of Israel means to both the Jewish people and the world. But, not only are his words important for Israelis (who are fed a strict diet of FOX News and U.S. Republican nonsensical garbage) to hear, but they are important that the Palestinians and Arabs hear them as well. Because no matter what he says to them, they have been told in very clear and unequivocal terms that the U.S. understands that Israel IS the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people.

2. His third trip to Israel gives President Obama a chance to directly speak to the Israeli people, side-stepping the machinations of the Right Wing, that are completely distraught and feinting at the possibility that their lies regarding the President be exposed. I think he will be clear that he does not call for "retreat to the 1967 borders", a myth that is spread by the right, despite all the availability of transcripts and documentation that he believes in something more akin to the Olmert plan of 2007-08.

Too much of the President's words and actions have been lost to the machinations of the punditry on the Right, who will stop at nothing, tell any lie and twist any truth just to make sure that people believe the worst in President Obama. BUT his history of support, in the U.N., with increased foreign aid (though the "sequester" does threaten some of that), with strongly enhanced security and intelligence cooperation between the two nations tells the TRUTH regarding his friendship.

Now will the Israeli Right (and their American cohorts) be happy regarding any of the President's trip to Israel. I sincerely doubt it. Up until now, they have been the ones to frame the discussion around Israel with their "Agree with us 1000% or you are no friend to the us", lessons learned from the Republican Teahadists here at home.

But this shouldn't be the case. It's time that those of us in the Center and Left stood up to the Republicans and Rightists and hold them accountable for their nonsense. First of all, all of those fans of Mitt Romney, refused to say what Mitt would have done differently. Further, Mitt himself said there was nothing he would have done differently. For instance when pressed on Egypt. Romney stated:

MR. SCHIEFFER: Governor Romney, I want to hear your response to that, but I would just ask you, would you have stuck with Mubarak?

MR. ROMNEY: No, I believe, as the president indicated and said at the time, that I supported his — his action there. (vb1 emphasis)  I felt that — I wish we'd have had a better vision of the future. I wish that, looking back at the beginning of the president's term and even further back than that, that we'd have recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world and that we would have worked more aggressively with our — our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form of government such that it didn't explode in the way it did. But once it exploded, I felt the same as the president did, which is these — these freedom voices in the — the streets of Egypt where the people who were speaking of our principles and the — the — President Mubarak had done things which were unimaginable, and the idea of him crushing his people was not something that we could possibly support.

And why should they own up to this? It doesn't fit their meme that President Obama is no friend to Israel. I mean the guy they were voting for ADMITTED he would do the same.

These are the messages that the Israelis need to hear. Not some spinning FOX head who simply makes up the news wholesale.

But more importantly the President (AS EVERY OTHER AMERICAN PRESIDENT SINCE 1967) has re-affirmed the American commitment to the Two State Solution. The Rightists who now are in J'slem, from the Deputy FM Ze'ev Elkin to the Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, to DM Moshe Ya'alon, to Naftali Bennett and his entire HaBayit HaYehudi Party are firmly AGAINST the two State solution. They have come out with an annexation plan for the Occupied West Bank.

So are we to let these people frame the argument of who is for Israel and who is not? I say no. I stand with our President and the Israeli Center / Center Left in their calls for Two State solution. It is the only way that Israel will remain a vibrant and Jewish Democracy. The President's actions and speeches have stood up to help support Israel in the long run. That is good enough for me, and I as a strong supporter of Israel am glad that Barak Obama is indeed President of the U.S. and is a strong friend to Israel. 

President Obama's trip to Israel Part One

President Obama's much anticipated trip to Israel is on... Courtesy of Transcripts at Daily Kos, here are the President's opening remarks during his arrival ceremony. And here are some excerpts.

I’m so honored to be here as you prepare to celebrate the 65th anniversary of a free and independent State of Israel.  Yet I know that in stepping foot on this land, I walk with you on the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

More than 3,000 years ago, the Jewish people lived here, tended the land here, prayed to God here.  And after centuries of exile and persecution, unparalleled in the history of man, the founding of the Jewish State of Israel was a rebirth, a redemption unlike any in history.

Today, the sons of Abraham and the daughters of Sarah are fulfilling the dream of the ages -- to be “masters of their own fate” in “their own sovereign state.”  And just as we have for these past 65 years, the United States is proud to stand with you as your strongest ally and your greatest friend.....

....So as I begin this visit, let me say as clearly as I can --the United States of America stands with the State of Israel because it is in our fundamental national security interest to stand with Israel.  It makes us both stronger.  It makes us both more prosperous.  And it makes the world a better place. 

That’s why the United States was the very first nation to recognize the State of Israel 65 years ago.  That’s why the Star of David and the Stars and Stripes fly together today.  And that is why I’m confident in declaring that our alliance is eternal, it is forever – lanetzach.

Powerful words that send a message to both those Israelis and those around the world that the U.S. recognizes the long history of the Jewish people and our connection to the land. Considering the delegitimization efforts on the parts of the new anti-Israel movement, the President's powerful statements send a message that these efforts will not succeed.

Also (again thanks to the Transcripts editors at DKos.. here are the President's remarks with President Obama and President Peres):

In this, President Peres spoke about the terror that is faced from Hamas rockets but also the threat from Syria and having their chemical weapons stock fall into Jihadi hands. And he ended with these words:

"Your visit is a historic step in that direction.  We shall journey with you all the way.  Thank you."

President Obama responded with this:

"Well, thank you, President Peres, for your very generous words and your warm welcome.  It is wonderful to be here once again.  I first visited you when I was still a senator and had the opportunity to visit the lovely garden, and for me to be able to bring a tree from the United States that will find a home in that garden I think is symbolic of not only the friendship between our two nations, but between the two of us personally...

Their (Israeli children's) dreams are much the same as children everywhere.  In another sense, though, their lives reflect the difficult realities that Israelis face every single day.  They want to be safe.  They want to be free from rockets that hit their homes or their schools.  They want a world where science and technology is created to build and not destroy.  They want to live in peace, free from terror and threats that are so often directed at the Israeli people.  That’s the future that they deserve.  That’s the vision that is shared by both our nations.  And that is Shimon Peres's life work....

......This obligation to future generations I think was well symbolized by the tree planting that we started our meeting with. The Talmud recounts the story of Honi, the miracle worker, who saw a man planting a carob tree.  And he asked the man, how long before this tree yields fruit?  To which the man responded, “Seventy years.”  And so Honi asked, “Are you sure you'll be alive in another 70 years to see it?”  And the man replied, “When I came into the world, I found carob trees.  As my forefathers planted for me, so will I plant for my children.”

President Peres I think understands that story well.  And so we want to all thank you for all the seeds you’ve planted -- the seeds of progress, the seeds of security, the seeds of peace --  all the seeds that have helped not only Israel grow but also the relationship between our two nations grow.  And I believe that if we tend to them, if we nurture them, they will yield fruit in every hill and valley of this land, not only for the children we met today but for Israelis, for Palestinians, for Arabs across the region.  That's not only good for the children of this region, but it’s good for my children and the children of America."

Meanwhile the Times of Israel is "liveblogging" talks President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu

So far there is not much up but there is this:

Silvan Shalom, newly installed as a senior cabinet minister, says there isn’t much difference now between Israel and the US “as regards timing on Iran.”

Haaretz has posted a transcript of the Prime Ministers welcome speech to President Obama

On behalf of the government and the people of Israel, I come here today with a simple message for you and the American people: Thank you. Thank you for standing by Israel at this time of historic change in the Middle East.

Thank you for unequivocally affirming Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself by itself against any threat.

Thank you for enhancing Israel’s’ ability to exercise that right through generous military assistance, revolutionary missile defense programs, and unprecedented security and intelligence cooperation. (vb1 emphasis)

Thank you, Mr. President, for upholding the Jewish people’s right to a Jewish state in our historic homeland, and for boldly defending that right at the United Nations. And thank you for strengthening the unbreakable alliance between our two nations during your Presidency.

So far so good, of course there some rumblings from the Hard Right in Israel, rumblings that we have discussed here, with Naftali Bennett's party already "showing teeth" and the makeup of the new coalition already starting to show divides. As the TOI mentions:

Amir Peretz, the new environment minister, says he hopes the Obama visit will give “a start-up” to peace efforts with the Palestinians.

Just six hours into this visit, it’s already exposing the contradictions in Israel’s leadership. Peres calls Abbas a partner; Peretz and Livni, from the center-left Hatnua, speak of peace hopes. But Jewish Home’s Bennett says the talk of a Palestinian state is “surreal” — in a bad way. His colleague Uri Orbach says lots of Israelis aren’t sure Obama really cares about them. Peres says Israel “trusts” Obama on Iran. Is Netanyahu prepared to say that?

Of course Jennifer Rubin and the Republicans are already blathering about how the President really hates Israel and his "pretty words" don't really mean a thing, but, honestly what else are they going to say. After this visit their whole "masterpiece of bullshit" regarding the President will be blown away.

Meanwhile please follow the President's trip at the sources mentioned (except for at Daily Kos, where you can get the same vitriol as you can at MondoFront, or other hate sites). I will try to update as the stories come out.

President Obama Talks to Israel's Channel Two

Ahead of his visit to Israel next week President Obama gave an interview to Israel's channel two

As reported in The Times of Israel and Haaretz the President discussed Iran and the threat that Iranian development of a nuclear bomb meant.

On the eve of his first visit to Israel as U.S. President, Barack Obama told an Israeli television network that "Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is a red line" for his administration....

...."I have been crystal clear about my position on Iran possessing a nuclear weapon - that is a red line for us", Obama said. "It’s something that would not only be dangerous for Israel but would be dangerous for the world [and would] be dangerous for U.S. national security interests". 

..."When I say that all options are on the table, all options are on the table", he said. "The United States obviously has significant capabilities … So when I say that we intend to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, that we’re going to pursue all avenues to make sure that that does not happen."

Kudos to the President for recognizing that steps need to be taken to stop a nuclear weapon BUT that the steps that need to be taken are all options before a major strike. At the current time, I don't think the U.S. (or Israel) should engage in a major military strike against Iran. I think there are other, much more effective ways to handle this and I am sure that the U.S. Government is on task here.

The President was also asked about a number of other things ranging from the Palestinian question to what his relationship with Bibi was, to what would happen to Jonathan Pollard, to what would he "really like to do in Tel-Aviv".

On Pollard the President had this to say:

Spy-for-Israel Jonathan Pollard “committed a very serious crime” and Obama has to follow the rules of review in his case. No plans to release him “immediately.”

But he’ll be “accorded the same kinds of review” open to any other individual. “I recognize the emotions involved in this… My first obligation is to observe the law” and ensure it is applied consistency. Lots of prisoners would like to be released early.

Again I say "Kudos" to the President. Jonathan Pollard was a spy for a foreign country feeding information on his own nation to that country. I don't care if that country was Israel, Pollard violated a trust with regards to the United States of America. As an American, I don't appreciate spies and traitors to our nation. I don't see why we should release Pollard at all. He spied on us, he should pay the price.

As for Israel.... Well, I think the President said it best, so I will simply pass his answer on:

“Some of this is politics… There are conservative views both here in the United States and Israel that may not jive with mine.” And those play out in election seasons. But “I’ve run my last election…” He wants to tell Israelis, he says, of his admiration for Israel’s history, core values, economic success and “the fundamental right of Israel to be secure as a homeland of the Jewish people, and its connection to the land.”

I don't think this could be put any better. And when he talks about the question of the Palestinian people I agree with him 1000%. I think they too need a homeland and to have recognition of their legitimate rights to self-determination. However, that this homeland CANNOT come at the expense of a secure Israel. The President rightly is concerned in this case when it comes to Hamas and their nature as a threat.

According to the TOI, they felt the President "sounded pessimistic" regarding results of talks. If polls of the Palestinians and the make-up of the next Israeli government are indicators... he should. The new Israeli government features a "hawkish" policy both on the International front AND with regards to the Occupation. With HaBayit HaYehudi joining the coalition (and having enough MK's to take down the coalition), they have a party dedicated to eventual annexation of the West Bank. Not too mention that the only person left in Likud who will even talk about a Two State Solution is the Prime Minister and he certainly is not a huge fan of it.

At the same time the Palestinian populace has moved much harder to the right and now is polling in support not only of Hamas, but in Hamas' tactics. See PSR Poll 46 just to see how much this has been the case. In either case, with both polities moving harder to the Right, this does not speak well for the future of any Peace negotiations.

On two lighter questions the President was asked how his relationship with PM Netanyahu was, to which he answered:

He’s met with “Bibi” more than any other world leader and has “a terrific, businesslike relationship.” It’s sometimes “blunt” but “we get stuff done.”

The US has a center-left government and Israel has a more conservative government, he allows.

“The bottom line is that Israel’s security is going to be at the forefront.” It’s not a factor of who’s president or prime minister.

“Any time you read something where the president allegedly said something in as private meting, I think you should … take that with a pinch of salt.”

Differences in policy, he stresses, “end up being bridged and resolved.”

Now, personally I am not sure that I would say that their relationship is "terrific", I can't see any indication of that whatsoever. It seems to me that they can and have worked together effectively in the last couple of years, but, I would not say that they are best buddies. But then again, I don't really care what their relationship is, as long as both American and Israeli interests are supported. They could hate each other with the power of Seven burning suns, but if the President keeps up his support for Israeli security in the manner he has, and the PM keeps up on supporting America the way he has, then whether they like each other is completely irrelevant to me and should be to anyone else.

Finally, the President was asked if there was anything in Tel Aviv that he would like to be able to do.

He says it would be great to wander through Tel Aviv in disguise and go to a university and have some conversations with students in informal settings… but that’s not possible. That really “chafes,” he says. “You can’t just slip out and interact with people without having a bunch of guys with machine-guns” hanging out with you.

Ventures Levy: There must be some compensations?

Obama: Well, there’s “a nice plane.”

All I can say it that I am glad this man is our President (I hope I would be, I voted for him) and that he is going to see Israel and cover off these important issues. I would love it if there was to a direct speech to the Israeli people from Rabin Square - I think that would be fitting. But I will take this visit and be glad.

Shalom.

Crazy Rightists of all stripes agree... President Obama should not visit Israel

This would almost like this could be from The Onion but, it's not. It is interesting to see though when the Lunatic Fringe's on the Hard Right and Hard Left totally agree on something (which of course makes those moderates feel that much more that they are right). But as the President gears up for his trip to the Middle East the nutty comments come out of the bag and for the most part, they all agree on one solid principle. They believe that President Obama should not go to Israel.



From the Lunatic Fringe on the Right, we have this:

Until we have a new administration it's best that Kerry and Obama and Hagel stay away from Israel.

These people cannot do any good because they simply do not understand Jewish history in the region and have no honest sympathies for those of us who live there.

They still believe that the reason that so many Arabs want to kill Jews is because the tiny Jewish minority are mean to the overwhelming Arab majority.  This is what "progressives," including "progressive Zionists," tend to believe.

The best that we can hope for is that Barack Obama will not cause even further damage than what he has caused already.  But I would not count on that.

Never mind that "progressive Zionists" think nothing of a sort except in the fevered minds and demented imaginations of the Lunatic Fringe, this is sort of fun to see. Even when this piece is written by an American who strangely talks as if he was Israeli - by saying <em>"Until we have a new administration"</em> (weird because in the U.S. we do have an administration). and that the President has <em>no sympathies for those of us who live there</em>.

It is interesting in that it assumes that the Presidents efforts to re-start the Peace process between Israelis and Palestinians are "damaging".

Of course, Lunatic Fringe on the Left has the same feeling saying:

A Palestinian grassroots group is planning demonstrations against expected American pressure to resume what it called “useless” negotiations.

“You are not welcome in Palestine,” read a meme on the Facebook page of Palestinians for Dignity, designed to resemble an immigration stamp in Obama’s passport.

Another satirical image on the page displays the US president as saying in Arabic, “American support for Israel is sacred and we must help it remain militarily superior.” An angry protester in a photo below responds in English, “this is a Welcome kiss from the Palestinian people, dog,” as he hurls a shoe at Obama, an Arab symbol of disdain

Not to be outdone.. Hamas called for "a day of Battle" where there might have to be "martyrs" 

Rumors that Obama intends to visit the al-Aqsa Mosque on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount persisted on Tuesday. In an op-ed titled “Receive Obama the way Sharon was received,” published Monday on Hamas’s news website Al-Resalah, columnist Mustafa Sawwaf called on Palestinians to confront “Zionists” on a daily basis ahead of Obama’s visit to the city.

“Palestinians everywhere should begin their activities with direct confrontation with the Zionists in preparation for Obama’s visit, even if this entails martyrs and injured [Palestinians] until the ominous day of the visit,” wrote Sawwaf.

“That should be the day of battle, the great day of mobilization worthy of the American president.”

So far though, the White House has resisted the calls from both of the Lunatic Fringes and is heading to Israel and Palestine to talk with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The issue of whether Israel has a functioning government at that time (six days away) is important, but it is also important for the President to meet with various political leaders in Israel and get a sense for where things are going.

Personally I think it would be great of the President spoke directly to the Israeli people and it would be fitting that it be in no better place than Rabin Square so I hope he would do something like that. But in any case, it's good that he is heading to Israel with Sec. State John Kerry. This kind of engagement will only help a very tricky situation. 
:

Secretary of State Kerry gets tough on Iran

In his first public address regarding Iran, new Secretary of State John Kerry has words from the Administration regarding Iran:

"We are prepared to let diplomacy be the victor in this confrontation over their nuclear program," Kerry said after meeting with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird. "The president has made it clear that he is prepared to talk about a peaceful nuclear program." 

Kerry also said: "Iran has a choice: they have to prove to the world that it is peaceful and we are prepared to sit responsibly and negotiate how they can do that and how we can all be satisfied."....

...Kerry also said that Iran's recent revelation that it would vastly increase its pace of uranium enrichment, which can make both reactor fuel and the fissile core of warheads, is "concerning" and "disturbing."

"The president has made it clear that his preference is to have a diplomatic solution, but if he cannot get there, he is prepared to do whatever is necessary to make certain that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon," he said.

 
Now, this is clearly a diplomatic "shot across the bow" to Iran. Right now it seems it is meant purely as a rhetorical threat as the U.S. in reality is actually going through force reduction in the Persian Gulf and rotating a carrier group OUT of the region.

It comes on the heels of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini's rhetoric stating:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's supreme leader Thursday strongly rejected proposals for direct talks with the United States, effectively quashing suggestions for a breakthrough one-on-one dialogue on the nuclear standoff and potentially other issues..... 

...."Talks will not solve any problems," Khamenei said in the statement posted Thursday following a meeting with air force commanders.

"You are holding a gun against Iran saying, 'Talks or you'll fire.' The Iranian nation will not be frightened by such threats," he added in apparent reference to U.S. sanctions over Iran's nuclear efforts.

However, this bellicose tone however, has not necessarily been supported through their actions.
First off, while the Bulgarians found Hizbollah guilty in an attack on a civilian bus in Burgas, Bulgaria that wounded a number of Israelis Iran has been quick to distance itself from it's client's actions.
Second, The Iranians publicly rebuffed Syrian requests for action after Israeli warplanes attacked a Syrian transfer of Soviet SA-117 missles to Hizbollah as well as a chemical weapons research facility.
Lately Iranian rhetoric has simply not matched their deeds. SO... what can we take away from this ratcheting up of rhetoric from the U.S.

Well.... (and I have been very wrong before), I think this is a signal that the U.S. is about to take an enhanced DIPLOMATIC role in the region. Now note that I say Diplomatic rather than Military.
Why do I say this? Well I say this due to the fact that the U.S. is in Force Reduction and Balancing the Budget mode, so ADDING a conflict in the region would do neither of those things. Additionally, the administration is discussing peaceable Nuclear energy as a "live with" situation.

At the same time perhaps the unconfirmed "blast" at Fordo was a message to Iran regarding the realities of their quest to enrich Uranium to weapons grade levels.

What then does the U.S. taking the DIPLOMATIC initiative mean... Well, it means that the President is putting the U.S. out in front on both a political and economic track to isolate the Iranian regime.

So far, aside from the Civil War in Syria (that is sure to cost the Iranians that nation), there are grumblings in Lebanon against Hizbollah (an Iranian client), as Israeli Jets fly mock sorties over the country in response to Hizbollah threats. At the same time the Government of Egypt who just had productive talks with Iran is facing popular dissension in the streets.

So is the U.S. signalling a move to enhance it's standing in the region through more covert means and with use of it's allies?

As far as economically, my assumption from Kerry's statements are that should the Iranians NOT "come to the table", they will face another more severe round of sanctions in addition to the ones that are beginning to strongly effect the Iranian economy and causing grumbling amongst the populace.
What I don't see is an all out military strike just yet, and honestly maybe not ever. BUT I do think things are about to get extremely "interesting" in the Persian Gulf. 

Mr. Obama and the Belagan

Here is the word of the day: Belagan:

Noun

1.

balagan - a word for chaos or fiasco borrowed from modern Hebrew (where it is a loan word from Russian); "it was utter and complete balagan!"

What is one of the most difficult intellectual endeavors on the Planet? Trying to figure out the politics of the Middle East. Nothing but nothing about this area is clear and nothing but nothing about this area makes a ton of sense. Into this fray - the President Obama steps. Living up to a campaign promise made during his first term the President will be heading to the Middle East to visit both the Israelis and Palestinian leadership (well the P.A. part of it)

Of course, in typical fashion for anything in the Middle East, nothing about this visit seems to make sense. One side (the Americans) state that the visit is for the President to "strengthen the bonds between Israel and the U.S.", One side (the Palestinians) are insisting that the U.S. visit be used to "pressure" the Israelis into halting the settlement process and force the Israelis to negotiate with him for a State and finally One side (the Israelis), are saying that that the President is both coming with a plan and a proposal for a summit between the Israelis and Palestinians AND Not coming with anything (is this a surprise to anyone?)

Speaking the other day President Obama had this to say:

“Given how important I think the situation in the Middle East is, and our partnership with Israel which is stronger than it’s ever been, when I go to Israel I want to make sure that we’re actually moving something forward,”

and American Ambassador Dan Shapiro added:

“President Obama is not coming with conditions or demands. He is coming to confer with all our partners about problems and challenges we are dealing with in the region.” He said Obama would not seek “a specific result” in any discussions related to “bringing Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiation table.”

The White House reiterated this through:

White House spokesman Jay Carney confirmed to reporters on Wednesday that Obama would bring no peace proposal with him, and will instead focus on discussions on issues of mutual concern to Israel and the US.

The timing of the visit is tied to the new administrations in both Israel and the United States, Carney said.

Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren speaking to MSNBC reiterated that position saying:

Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, told MSNBC that the purpose of the visit was not to relaunch peace talks.

 “The White House has made very clear that the purpose of the trip is to strengthen an already historic bond between Israel and the United States. I think it sent a powerful message to the Middle East at a time of great uncertainty and upheaval throughout the region, and I think that is the purpose of the trip,” Oren said

 BUT..... Outgoing Deputy PM Danny Ayalon contradicted them by with this:

Israel’s outgoing deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon said earlier Wednesday that Obama wants to host a summit between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during the visit, which is tentatively set for late March or early April. Ayalon said he was “certain” preparations for such a summit were already under way.

 AND in two related stories:

Yitzhak Molcho, the Netanyahu administration’s special envoy to Ramallah, will reportedly be dispatched to the US next week to discuss ways of advancing talks with the Palestinians, adding to speculation that a peace plan is in the works.

 as well as this from Haaretz:

 A senior member of Netanyahu's Likud party who is involved in the coalition talks said Tuesday that Netanyahu is considering acceding to Hatnuah leader Tzipi Livni's demand to appoint her as minister in charge of talks with the Palestinians. 

 SO... what is the truth of this?

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has come under heavy fire from some own members of his party. Outgoing Deputy Prime Minister (Likud) Dan Meriador surprised everyone today with some harsh criticism of the Netanyahu settlement policy.

In a setback for Netanyahu, a close political ally criticized Israel's settlement policies, saying continued construction deep inside the West Bank has undermined Israel's credibility and could threaten the country's long-term survival.

"We could pay a great price," Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, a senior member of Netanyahu's Likud Party, warned on Israeli Radio....

....
But on the radio, Meridor said the government was sending mixed signals to the world by speaking in favor of Palestinian independence while settling Israelis on lands claimed by the Palestinians.

He said Israel should limit construction to major settlement "blocs" and existing Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem, and halt construction in outlying areas. Israel is expected to keep these settlements under any future peace deal.

"There is a lack of consistency between our claim of wanting two states ... and the fact that we don't limit building to the blocs only," he said. By sending this mixed message, "we cast doubt on our intentions and statements, and this is costing us a very high price."

Meridor stressed that establishment of a Palestinian state is in Israel's interests. Without a partition, most demographers believe that the Arab population under Israeli control could soon outnumber Jews.

 And....

The Haaretz daily on Thursday, citing two unidentified officials, quoted Netanyahu's national security adviser, Yaakov Amidror, as warning that Israel's settlement policies were hurting its standing with key allies.

"It's impossible to explain the issue of settlement construction anyplace in the world," he was quoted as saying. "Construction in the settlements has become a diplomatic problem and is causing Israel to lose support even among its friends in the West." 

Meanwhile the Palestinians say that they want to the President to visit and put some heat on the Israelis to end settlements and get back to the negotiating table. Their two demands: Start negotiations based on the the 1967 borders (and they have expressed willingness to compromise there in the past) AND cease ALL settlement construction, even in the established settlement blocs.

Expressing support for a two-state solution ahead of US President Barack Obama’s spring visit, senior Palestinian official Jibril Rajoub said Thursday that “the Americans are the only ones who can build a bridge to peace.”

IMPORTANT NOTE:: Rajoub was the guy who said this: "Asked about leaving blocs of Jewish settlements in the West Bank as part of the framework of the two-state solution, Rajoub rejected the idea out of  hand. “Absolutely not. There is not room for even one settler” beyond the pre-1967 lines, he said. The fact that it was even discussed at at earlier negotiations at Camp David was a “mistake,”

and:

"We believe he has good intentions, but in order for him to succeed, he should realize the reasons for the failure of the previous round of talks and avoid them," said Mohammed Ishtayeh, a senior Palestinian negotiator. "Mainly he needs to get involved personally and put real pressure on Israel......

.....Ishtayeh said the Palestinians would not budge on their demands for a settlement freeze or their insistence that the 1967 borders remain the baseline for negotiations. He also ruled out an interim agreement while final borders can be worked out.

SO... what's really happening. Well if it were my guess - and I think it is here.... I think that there is something in the works regarding at least a re-opening in the Peace Process. The fact that Likud-Betainu is talking to Tzipi Livni and has had two meetings with the Center and Left parties BEFORE he has even met with the Rightists is telling. Also, sending Molcho to Washington to brief Secretary of State Kerry prior to his visit later this month I think means something is afoot.

It may not be much and I would bet money that it will not amount to much but one never knows. There is a great deal of instability in the region with the Iranians flexing diplomatic muscle and heading to Egypt to make nice with President Morsi along with the electoral situation in Jordan, where the King faces growing radicalism and opposition to his rule, to the chaos in Syria and the increasing power of Hizbollah in Lebanon.

So, I imagine that the President is heading there to try to stabilize the Israeli / Palestinian situation as he tries to deal with the mess that heading his way from the increasing radicalization of political movements in the Arab World. But it is not only the Arab World. The American policy has long been one of support for Two States for Two Peoples. The increased settlements in the West Bank (Occupied Territory), as Meriador points out do cause an issue with the international community and honestly they will eventually cause an existential crises within Israel itself as the demographics of the country would change with annexation or permanent occupation of the Arab areas of the West Bank.

On the other hand, the Palestinians themselves refuse to recognize Israel as it was formed to be (as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People) AND the political situation within the Palestinian polity is questionable at best, with Hamas gaining more power again after their mini-War in November. The Israelis, quite understandably are not really willing to give up a lot of land and then having to deal with Hamas (a force dedicated to Israel's destruction) all of a sudden sitting in some very strategic areas. 

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are stepping into a Belagan - I say Kol HaKvod ("All the respect" - literally, "Total respect - Way to go" figuratively ). I hope they have some success here so that Israel and America can move forward and so Israelis and Palestinians can find a way to make peace (as unlikely as it seems).