Looking for His glorious appearing! Titus 2:13

Will the U.S. Punish Israel If It Attacks Iran?
May 23rd, 2009
CommentarySpectator.org
Categories: Commentary;The Nation Of Israel;Warning

Based on hints, feints, public pronouncements, and off the record commentary, the administration's stance toward Iran is coming into focus. Without any question, military action against Iran is off the agenda. The Obama administration will do nothing to prevent the further enrichment of uranium by Iran's mullahs, notwithstanding who is elected in that nation's upcoming vote. 

The negotiations with Iran are based on the premise that Iran can produce as much enriched uranium as it wants as long as a nuclear bomb isn't manufactured. In other words, Obama seeks a "Japanese solution," the conditions for a bomb without actually making one. 

For some, this is a distinction without a difference since the bomb can be made in days if deployment is in the cards. If Obama can get the Iranians to agree to this arrangement with adequate blandishments provided by our side, including the lifting of sanctions, he will announce with great fanfare that "peace" between Iran and the West has been achieved. For keen observers of the region, it will be regarded as a "Munich peace." For others, it will be seen as a significant diplomatic breakthrough. 

In order to mollify Israeli leaders that this deal isn't threatening to that nation's survival, Obama will argue that the United States stands committed to employ its nuclear umbrella to protect Israel against nuclear attack. Although this offer will be made with apparent sincerity, it is hard to believe that Obama would be willing to risk the safety of New York in order to protect Tel Aviv. Moreover, it is also hard to believe any serious official in Israel will accept this proposal, albeit other options may not be available. 

The Obama administration has made it clear that it will punish Israel if it decides to attack Iran unilaterally. Having failed to contain Iran, the United States is concentrating on restraining Israel. Administration contingency plans include a formal condemnation of Israel, support for a United Nations Security Council resolution that could include sanctions against Israel and suspending military aid to the Jewish state. 

The big question is what the Obama administration will do if Israel, determining that Iran with the capacity to build nuclear weapons, is an existential threat and despite, U.S. disapproval, attacks Iran in any case. Moreover, how will President Obama react if Iran retaliates against Israel as well as shutting down the 29 mile wide Strait of Hormuz, through which twenty percent of the world's crude oil is transported? Would the U.S. fight back, would it blame Israel for the preemptive attack on Iran appealing to the "Muslim world" for understanding? 

Iran, which has vowed "to wipe Israel off the map," and its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies would retaliate with missile launches on Tel Aviv and Haifa should any attack on Iran occur. For Israel to be even marginally successful, it must eliminate missile installations in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran -- a truly formidable military objective. 

Decades of appeasement and accommodations with Iran have led to the present impasse. These policy blunders cannot be attributed to President Obama. In fact, blame belongs on both sides of the political aisle. However, what distinguishes Obama's diplomatic initiative from others is the "downgrading" of Israel in order to strike a "grand bargain" with Iran for regional "pacification." Whether Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu wants it or not, Jerusalem is now on a collision course with Washington. 

Israelis may be understandably stunned by the evolution of events. They are on the horns of a dilemma. Netanyahu has responded to the emerging U.S. position by noting that he will be accommodative on any argument with the Palestinians if Obama can negate the Iranian threat. He is attempting to establish a nexus between a Palestinian accord and the elimination of this threat. After all, he contends, if Iran is in the position to build nuclear weapons, the weapons serve as a cover for Hamas missile attacks against the state of Israel since escalation could lead to a nuclear exchange and should be avoided at all cost. 

The Obama administration position is 180 degrees in a different direction. It appears to be arguing that an accommodative Israel that makes a deal with the Palestinians for a separate state will have American protection against a possible Iranian nuclear attack. But the first and overarching responsibility lies with Israel to arrange its negotiated settlement with Palestinian leaders. 

President Obama believes time is on his side since he has already conceded with his "engagement" drive that Iran will have the time to enrich enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon. Prime Minister Netanyahu, unable to accept the potential threat, feels time is of the essence. The closer Iran gets to the fateful "tipping point," the closer Israel is to survival issues. 

Erstwhile President Jimmy Carter tried to assuage Israeli leaders in 1979 by noting that his craven concession to Iranian leaders did not pose a threat to Israel. Is Barack Obama preparing to go one step further in downgrading the importance of Israel in his attenuated negotiation with Iran? History is waiting impatiently for an answer and the world waits with bated breath.

Report: U.S. Promised Jerusalem will be Palestine's Capital
May 23rd, 2009
Daily NewsP. M. C.
Categories: Today's Headlines;The Nation Of Israel;Peace Process

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has been assured that US President Barack Obama's new peace plan includes a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem.

PA officials told the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot that the US intends to stand by its policy that East Jerusalem should be the Palestinian capital. Obama is expected to roll out the peace plan in Cairo on 4 June.

The plan also calls for Israel to freeze settlement activity, and a clear timetable for the establishment of a Palestinian state, negotiated under the framework of the Arab Peace Initiative. The newspaper said the US is expected to ask Arab states also to set a timeline for establishing normalized diplomatic ties with Israel.

Meanwhile US Senators sent a letter to Obama asking him to take into account "risks [Israel will] face in any peace agreement."

The letter, signed by 76 US senators, or more than three quarters of the upper chamber of the congress, urged Obama to “continue to insist on the absolute Palestinian commitment to ending terrorist violence and to building the institutions necessary for a viable Palestinian state living side-by-side, in peace with the Jewish state of Israel,” according to Yediot.

A similar letter is reported to have garnered 200 signatures in the House of Representatives.

On his two-day visit to Washington, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did face demands to halt construction of settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Democratic Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee raised the settlement issue saying, "I emphasized to the prime minister the importance of moving forward, especially in respect to the settlement issue," according to Reuters.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also told reporters that, while hosting Netanyahu for dinner on Monday night, she stressed Obama’s view that "he wants to see a stop to the settlements."

Previous attempts, throughout the 17-year-old peace process, to compel Israel to halt settlements have failed. The charter of Netayahu’s Likud Party dictates that Israel refuse to give up any territory in its control.

Obama Seeks Reconciliation With Muslim World, and Israel will Pay the Price
May 23rd, 2009
CommentaryYnet News
Categories: Commentary;The Nation Of Israel;Anti-Israel

Now that Benjamin Netanyahu has visited Washington and the White House and is back home, we can sum up the current situation, through the rumor mill for the time being: We are in trouble. 

As opposed to almost all American presidents in recent generations, Barack Obama views himself as one who is guiding his country and the free world towards a new history, far beyond what we can see. Obama wishes to shape new universal discourse, which seeks to replace the confrontation with the radical Muslim world emerging before our eyes in recent times. Obama leads a line of reconciliation vis-à-vis this hostile world, and the price – whether we'd like it or not – will be paid by the State of Israel. 

Israel has already started paying. Very soon, Obama will arrive in Cairo, and there, in a speech to more than one billion Muslims worldwide, he will take the first step out of a million steps of reconciliation. Obama still believes, apparently, that the Pakistani nuclear bomb and the Iranian nuclear bomb and other bombs expected from this terrible and hostile world can be neutralized by appeasement and accommodation. 

Obama wishes to separate what have become Siamese twins for generations now: The US and Israel. He doesn't like the photographs we have seen in the last dozens of years from places as far as Jakarta and Tripoli, where Israeli and American flags are burned together. Always together. Just like speeches in Tehran and in Karachi always refer to American-Zionist imperialism. 

No more. To their credit, Netanyahu and Obama did not even try to hide the deep disagreements between Washington and Jerusalem. They placed everything on the table, and according to all the talk and indications, two days ago we saw in the US capital the prologue to the play: At this time, the orchestra is playing the opening tune. Soon we will see the appearance of the gun in the first act; the one that will fire in the last act. 

Wishing to change history 

We must make no mistake about it, and who knows this better than Netanyahu: The words of praise and politeness are part of the well-known American hypocrisy, the one that explains to you in nice language what America wants. And America, at this stage, is distancing from Israel, and is not even trying to accommodate its positions to the ones presented by Jerusalem this week. 

So that's it. The window of opportunity regarding the special longtime ties between Washington and Israel is starting to close down. It won't happen quickly or tomorrow, but we are witnessing the beginning of the process. 

You want another indication? It is still hard to believe that an American president will soon visit Cairo without arriving in Israel. Only a relatively short while ago, White House officials would ask Israel whether it's possible, "if you don't mind," to hold a quick visit in Cairo in addition to the major visit in Jerusalem (and when the Israelis hinted this was undesirable, it didn't happen.) Such superpower will not be asking us any longer. It won't inform us in advance either. 

Thus far, Obama looks and sounds like a president who wishes to change history and enter the annals of history. He may certainly consider a forced agreement (and there are rather broad camps in Israel that would welcome such deal.) He may envision the 57 leaders of Islamic countries on a special stage in the White House, and in the middle, amidst all the robes and suits, Barack Obama himself along with Bibi Netanyahu, and everyone will be smiling from ear to ear.

Obama Middle East Peace Plan Details Revealed
May 23rd, 2009
CommentaryJpost.com
Categories: Commentary;Peace Process

The London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi has published what it claims are key details of the new Middle East peace plan to be presented by President Obama in his speech in Cairo on June 4. Details of the plan made the front page of two leading Israeli newspapers. 

If the revelations prove accurate, they reveal a US administration as yet unacquainted with several basic facts of life concerning politics and strategy in the Middle East. 

There were those in Israel who suspected Obama of being a kind of wolf in sheep's clothing, preparing with a friendly smile to offer up Israel as a sacrifice to its regional enemies. 

The picture emerging from the alleged details of his plan suggest a different, though not necessarily more comforting characterization: When it comes to the Middle East, Obama is an innocent abroad. 

Observe: We are told that the new plan represents a revised version of the 2002 Arab peace plan and is to offer the following: a demilitarized Palestinian state approximating the armistice lines of June 5, 1967. Territorial exchanges may take place on the West Bank. This state will be established within four years of the commencement of negotiations. 

On Palestinian refugees: The refugees and their descendants will be naturalized in their countries of current residence, or will have the right to move to the new Palestinian state. In parallel to the negotiations with the Palestinians, separate negotiating tracks with the Syrians and Lebanese will be established. 

If the Obama plan does indeed include these elements, its failure is a certainty, because it has been formulated without reference to regional realities. 

Currently, west of the Jordan River there are three political entities: Israel, the West Bank Palestinian Authority, and a Hamas-run, quasi-sovereign body in the Gaza Strip.
Entities 1 and 3 are in a state of war with each other. 

Entity 2's existence is underwritten by entity 1, without which it would be devoured by entity 3.
The Obama plan, it would appear, simply fails to take into account the fact of Hamas-run Gaza's existence. 

Yet the decision this week by West Bank PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to form a narrow government is testimony to the Hamas-led statelet's durability. There is no Palestinian force able, or other force willing, to destroy it. It has made clear that it does not intend to negotiate itself out of existence. For as long as it is there, armed by Iran and opposed to all moves toward reconciliation, all plans based on authoritative peace negotiations between Israel and the PA are divorced from reality. 

The refugee question is to be addressed by naturalization or a "return" to the borders of the new Palestinian state. There is no significant Palestinian faction which will agree to this. The Islamist factions, obviously, will reject it out of hand. 

It will also be opposed by Fatah. This movement is in any case in a state of disarray and disunity. But the trends at rank and file level in it are toward greater religiosity and greater radicalism. The issue of the "return," far more than the issue of the "Palestinian state," is the foundation stone of Palestinian nationalism as imagined by Fatah. There is no way that the movement could abandon it. If it did, it would be almost certain to cede the leadership of the Palestinian national movement. 

Regarding the issue of the "naturalization" of refugees and their descendants, it is not quite clear how Lebanon and Syria, home to large Palestinian populations, are to be persuaded to grant full citizenship to their residents of Palestinian origin. Opposition to the tawteen (naturalization) of Palestinian residents is one of the very few issues on which all Lebanese political factions are united. 

A government dominated by Hizbullah is likely to emerge following the Lebanese elections on June 7. Its default position will be support for the Iranian-led regional bloc, and opposition to all attempts at a negotiated peace between Palestinians and Israelis. Certainly, such a government will feel no inclination toward helping out the US administration by abandoning a key, consensual Lebanese political stance. 

Syria will also not abandon a core pro-Palestinian position in order to accommodate Washington. As for the view of even Washington's allies among the Palestinians for this option - naturalization was overtly rejected by Mahmoud Abbas on a visit to Lebanon last year. 

Above and beyond the details, the plan revealed in Al-Quds al-Arabi fails to acknowledge the salient fact of current Middle East strategy: namely, the division of the region into an Islamist "resistance" bloc led by Iran, and a loose coalition of all those states opposed to this bloc. 

There is a conspiracy theory according to which Obama, with Machiavellian cunning, knows that his plan is unworkable, and intends to use its failure to cast blame and accusation on Israel. Who knows? Perhaps evidence will yet emerge in support for this thesis. 

It seems more likely, however, that the president remains enthralled by the sunny illusions of the peace process of the 1990s, and is about to give them another run around the block. He has four years to follow the well-trodden path from innocence to experience. The problem is that further afield, there are other, more urgent clocks ticking.

IAF Drill Simulates All - Out Regional War
May 23rd, 2009
Daily NewsHaaretz.com
Categories: Today's Headlines;The Nation Of Israel;War

The Israel Air Force held a major drill Thursday simulating a war between Israel and Arab states and terrorist groups. As part of the drill, the air force tested readiness against attacks, including rockets and missiles targeting the home front from multiple directions. 

Even though the plan was not substantively different from drills in previous years, it drew international media attention because of recent developments in Iran's nuclear program and Iran's test-firing Wednesday of a ballistic missile with an estimated 2,000-kilometer range - which would put Israel within reach. 

Most air force squadrons participated in the drill, including interceptors, attack aircraft, helicopters, transport and refueling aircraft, the air defense system and air force intelligence. The drill also involved ground forces. 

The scenario being tested, most of whose details remain classified, involved fighting on multiple fronts: against Hamas and Hezbollah, but also Syria and Iran to some degree. 

Unlike the summer 2008 drill, which the New York Times reported involved a test flight for a long range attack on Iran, carried out in Greek airspace, there was nothing of the sort this time. 

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Thursday that the drill "was a very important one. What we witnessed bolsters our confidence that we have people we can rely on." 

The air force drill is part of broad Israeli preparations for a potential regional war, including attacks by Iran, or a conflict limited to the northern front - Lebanon and Syria.

'two - State Solution' the Darling of Religious Left
May 23rd, 2009
Daily NewsOneNewsNow - Chad Groening
Categories: Today's Headlines;The Nation Of Israel;Anti-Israel

A messianic Jewish leader says the "Religious Left" in America simply fails to understand the futility of continuing to pursue a "two-state solution" to the Palestinian problem.

Last week a group of liberal theologians met at the Carter Center in Atlanta for two days of discussions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the close of the conference, they crafted a letter to President Barack Obama supporting his push for a two-state solution and calling for an immediate opening of the Gaza borders.
 
The letter refers to a "rising hope" that the theologians sense. "That hope is grounded in the growing consensus across the Christian community that supports a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" resulting in a "lasting two-state solution and an end to conflict in the region...," the letter states.
 
Jan Markell, founder and director of Olive Tree Ministries in Minnesota, says the Religious Left continues to live in a state of delusion concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
 
"Do we see the Palestinian community having changed any policies toward Israel? Have both Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah taken out of their charters that the State of Israel needs to be annihilated?" she asks. "They wouldn't take any of those things out of their charters -- and yet the Religious Left perpetually just looks the other way and says 'Israel, you've got to try harder.'"
 
According to Markell, the Religious Left cannot stand the State of Israel. "If it weren't so horrific, it would be laughable," she laments.
 
Markell says sadly the vast majority of the world goes along with the Religious Left's belief in a two-state solution.
 
The group Christians United for Israel apparently is not among the "Christian community" referred to in the letter to the president. That group believes the Jewish people have a right to live in their ancient land of Israel, and maintains there is no excuse for acts of terrorism against the tiny nation.