Ditching Israel, Embracing Iran

Posted October 31, 2014 by joopklepzeiker
Categories: Uncategorized


Ditching Israel, Embracing Iran

Nov 10, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 09 • By LEE SMITH

via Ditching Israel, Embracing Iran | The Weekly Standard.


Last week, the Obama White House finally clarified its Middle East policy. It’s détente with Iran and a cold war with Israel.

Our new partners?

Our new partners?


To the administration, Israel isn’t worth the trouble its prime minister causes. As one anonymous Obama official put it to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, what good is Benjamin Netanyahu if he won’t make peace with the Palestinians? Bibi doesn’t have the nerve of Begin, Rabin, or Sharon, said the unnamed source. The current leader of this longstanding U.S. ally, he added, is “a chickens—t.”

It’s hardly surprising that the Obama White House is crudely badmouthing Netanyahu; it has tried to undercut him from the beginning. But this isn’t just about the administration’s petulance and pettiness. There seems to be a strategic purpose to heckling Israel’s prime minister. With a possible deal over Iran’s nuclear weapons program in sight, the White House wants to weaken Netanyahu’s ability to challenge an Iran agreement.

Another unnamed Obama official told Goldberg that Netanyahu is all bluster when it comes to the Islamic Republic. The Israeli leader calls the clerical regime’s nuclear weapons program an existential threat, but he’s done nothing about it. And now, said the official, “It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

In other words, the White House is openly boasting that it bought the Iranians enough time to get across the finish line. Obama has insisted for five years that his policy is to prevent a nuclear Iran from emerging. In reality, his policy all along was to deter Israel from striking Iranian nuclear facilities. The way Obama sees it, an Iranian bomb may not be desirable, but it’s clearly preferable to an Israeli attack. Not only would an Israeli strike unleash a wave of Iranian terror throughout the region—and perhaps across Europe and the United States as well—it would also alienate what the White House sees as a potential partner.

The negotiations with Iran were only the most obvious part of the administration’s policy of pressuring Israel. The White House knew the Israelis would have difficulty striking Iranian nuclear facilities so long as there was a chance of a deal. Jerusalem couldn’t risk making itself the enemy of peace and an international pariah. All Netanyahu could do was warn against the bad deal Obama was intent on making.

The White House used plenty of other tools to pressure Jerusalem. For instance, leaks. Virtually every time Israel struck an Iranian arms depot in Syria or a convoy destined for Hezbollah, an administration official leaked it to the press. The White House understood that publicizing these strikes would embarrass Bashar al-Assad or Hassan Nasrallah and thereby push them to retaliate against Israel. That was the point of the leaks: to keep Israel tentative and afraid of taking matters into its own hands.

Another instrument of pressure was military and security cooperation between Israel and the White House—the strongest and closest the two countries have ever enjoyed, say Obama advocates. It allowed administration officials to keep even closer watch on what the Israelis were up to, while trying to make Jerusalem ever more dependent on the administration for its own security.

Don’t worry, Obama told Israel: I’ve got your back. I don’t bluff. The Iranians won’t get a bomb. And besides, the real problem in the region, the White House said time and again, is Israeli settlements. It’s the lack of progress between Jerusalem and Ramallah that destabilizes the region. As John Kerry said recently, the stalled Arab-Israeli peace process is what gave rise to the Islamic State.

From the White House’s perspective, then, Israel is the source of regional instability. Iran, on the other hand, is a force for stability. It is a rational actor, Obama has explained, pursuing its own interests. The White House, moreover, shares some of those interests—like rolling back the Islamic State.

The fact that Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani now calls the shots in four Arab capitals—Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and Sanaa—makes him the Middle East’s indispensable man. Compared with the one-stop shopping Obama can do in Tehran to solve his Middle East problems, what can Israel offer?

The Obama administration’s Middle East policy, finally clarified last week, is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Islamic Republic. The question is whether the White House has also misunderstood the character of a man, the prime minister of Israel, whose courage they mock.

It’s Time for Israel to Recognize the Royal Republic of Ladonia

Posted October 31, 2014 by joopklepzeiker
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: ,

It’s Time for Israel to Recognize the Royal Republic of Ladonia

October 30, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

via It’s Time for Israel to Recognize the Royal Republic of Ladonia | FrontPage Magazine.



Sweden decided to recognize the unelected government of a bankrupt PLO terror state located inside Israel’s borders. But if Sweden is going to start recognizing illegal micro-nations located inside Israel, it’s only reasonable for Israel to return the favor.

It’s time for Israel to recognize the Royal Republic of Ladonia.

While most of us know Lars Vilks for his Mohammed cartoons, he is also the founder of Ladonia. Unlike Sweden, Ladonia stands for such values as freedom of expression.

He declared independence from Sweden in 1996, calling the square kilometer that surrounds the sculptures the Royal Republic of Ladonia, or just Ladonia. Because Sweden has not recognized Ladonia’s independence, nor has any other country for that matter, it is classified as a micronation.

Ladonia is a constitutional monarchy, currently ruled by Queen Carolyn I and President Christopher Matheoss. Dr. Lars Vilks, meanwhile, is the State Secretary.

While no one actually lives in Ladonia, it does have its own newspaper, holidays  and government. And a lot of nobles. Its history has as much legitimacy as that of the Arab Muslim settlers in Israel calling themselves Palestinians and it’s only four years younger than they are.

It also has elections, which is more than “Palestine” has.

It’s time for Israel to extend official recognition to this brave young country and its leadership.

And then there’s the Republic of Jamtland which has a history far older than that of the “Palestinian” Muslim settlers and dates back over a thousand years. It was an independent republic in the past.


It’s gone through three presidents, has a flag and a sizable population that actually lives there. There’s also a Jamtland Republicans football team.



Extending diplomatic to Jamtland seems like the sensible thing to do. But Israel probably ought to stay away from recognizing the
Bjorn Socialist Republic as it’s a Marxist micro-state.

Iran talks should weigh fatwas on nuclear arms: US bishops

Posted October 31, 2014 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Islam, Iranian nukes, Iran, Christians

Tags: , , , ,

Iran talks should weigh fatwas on nuclear arms: US bishops, Yahoo News via AFP, Jo Biddle, October 30, 2014

(Religion as a motivator? We have been told that the Islamic State is not motivated by any religion. What about the refusal of the Islamic Republic of Iran to permit inspections of its suspected nuke facilities, it massive support for terrorism and its abysmal human rights record? They must be of little if any importance, because none of them could be motivated by the Religion of Peace. An unwritten fatwa? Surely, that has to be binding since they say it is. Right. — DM)

“Iran is a very, very religious culture. It is also a very modern culture. And it is not all like the caricature of the fanatic religion that we see depicted too often … and the fatwa needs to be looked at in that light.”

“I would argue that we ignore the influence of religion as a motivator and validator at our own peril,” said Stephen Colecchi, a leading USCCB official.


Washington (AFP) – Less than a month before a deadline to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, US Catholic bishops are urging negotiators not to underestimate the power of fatwas by Islamic leaders banning atomic weapons.

In a ground-breaking visit, a six-strong delegation from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) travelled in April to the holy city of Qom to meet with top Shiite leaders in a bid to bridge gaps between Iran and the West.

“Iranians feel profoundly misunderstood by America and the West,” said Bishop Richard Pates, the chairman of the USCCB’s committee on international justice and peace, speaking publicly about the trip on Wednesday.

As the West seeks to negotiate a deal by November 24 to rein in Iran’s suspect nuclear program, the USCCB delegation argued Washington, in particular, should pay more heed to Iranian assertions that stockpiling and using nuclear weapons would be against the fundamental principles of Shiite Islam.

Iranian leaders say Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons in 2003 and has reiterated it several times since.

No text of the fatwa appears to have been written down, but the Iranian religious leaders told the bishops’ delegation that it was “a matter of public record and was highly respected among Shia scholars and Iranians generally,” Pates said.

In their talks, the Irani leaders assured the delegation that nuclear weapons “are immoral because of their indiscriminate nature and their powerful force of destroying all types of innocent communities,” Pates told the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Tehran has repeatedly denied that it is seeking to develop the atomic bomb, saying its nuclear program is for civilian energy purposes only.

But the West, and the grouping known as the P5+1, remain deeply skeptical, arguing that the Islamic republic must take “verifiable actions” to show the world that its program is for peaceful purposes only.

- Modern culture -

“I would argue that we ignore the influence of religion as a motivator and validator at our own peril,” said Stephen Colecchi, a leading USCCB official.

He said he believed the US State Department was not seriously factoring in Iranian religious objections to weapons of mass destruction as part of the negotiations.

“Iran is a very, very religious culture. It is also a very modern culture. And it is not all like the caricature of the fanatic religion that we see depicted too often … and the fatwa needs to be looked at in that light.”

In the ongoing nuclear negotiations, the fatwa “does not have every relevance, but it does have some relevance,” Colecchi argued, saying it was “pervasively taught and defended in Iran.”

“And the possibility of changing the fatwa overnight is non-existent. This is what should be taken into account by diplomats … it would undermine the whole teaching authority of their system.”

“It’s inconceivable to a Catholic that the pope would do it like that, and it’s inconceivable to them that an ayatollah or a supreme leader would do that,” Colecchi added.

University of Maryland academic and expert Ebrahim Mohseni said a recent study found that some 65 percent of Iranians believed producing nuclear weapons was against Islam.

Technical experts from the P5+1 — Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States plus Germany — plus Iran were continuing to meet Wednesday to hammer out a deal, with the November 24 deadline looming.

So far no date has been set for the next round of high-level talks.

US Secretary of State John Kerry was meanwhile hosting a dinner late Wednesday for EU foreign policy chief Cathy Ashton, who is stepping down after leading the negotiations with Iran as part of the P5+1 group, to thank her for “her leadership,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

“It’s not a working dinner, but certainly we wouldn’t be surprised if Iran was discussed.”

Abbas’ Fatah Party Calls for ‘Day of Rage’ on Friday

Posted October 30, 2014 by joopklepzeiker
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , ,

Remember, Friday is the Muslim “day of rest.”

By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Published: October 30th, 2014

via The Jewish Press » » Abbas’ Fatah Party Calls for ‘Day of Rage’ on Friday.


Abbas' Fatah party praises the terrorist who attempted to murder Rabbi Yehuda Glick.
Abbas’ Fatah party praises the terrorist who attempted to murder Rabbi Yehuda Glick.
Photo Credit: PMW 

Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah organization has declared Friday a “day of rage” and called on the Palestinian “fighters” to “defend” the Al-Aqsa mosque, the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) reported Thursday, quoted the Arabic-language site of the PA’s official WAFA news agency.

WAFA’s English site did not report the direct incitement for more violence.

“Fatah calls to its fighters and to the masses of the Palestinian people to aid the Al-Aqsa Mosque and occupied Jerusalem,” WAFA stated.

PMW also said that Fatah declared Friday as a “day of rage… to express the Palestinian people’s opposition to any attack on the holy places and foremost among them the Al-Aqsa Mosque… And to consider desecration of Al-Aqsa as a declaration of a religious war against the Palestinian people and the Arab Islamic nations.”

“Desecration” includes Jews ascending the Temple Mount.

Fatah also told Arabs of “celebrations” over the attempted murder of Temple Mount activist Yehuda Glick Wednesday night.

The party headed by Abbas called Rabbi Glick “despicable” and labeled the terrorist who shot him a “heroic Martyr,” PMW reported.

One poster uploaded by Fatah’s Jerusalem branch carried the phrasing, “Fatah’s Jerusalem branch accompanies its heroic Martyr to his wedding, Mutaz Ibrahim Khalil Hijazi, who carried out the assassination attempt of Zionist rabbi Yehuda Glick.”

The same Fatah adviser who posed the incitement is the same person who earlier this month lauded the terrorists who killed a three-month-old American-Israeli baby.”

Abbas insisted on Wednesday that he is not calling for or urging violence, but PMW noted that Palestinian Authority television aired 25 times in the past two weeks “a clip of Abbas calling to ‘use all ways’ to prevent Jews from approaching the Temple Mount.’”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry still maintains that Abbas has renounced violence.

Suspected shooter worked at Begin Center, vowed to be ‘thorn in Zionist side’

Posted October 30, 2014 by Louisiana Steve
Categories: Uncategorized

Suspected shooter worked at Begin Center, vowed to be ‘thorn in Zionist side’
By Ilan Ben Zion and Elhanan Miller October 30, 2014, 3:22 pm Via Times of Israel

The owner of the Terasa restaurant, located at the Menachem Begin Center in Jerusalem,  speaks to press on October 30, 2014. Photo credit: Noam Revkin Fenton/Flash90)

(“Yehuda, I’m sorry, but the things you said hurt me.”…Not a very good reason to shoot someone, now is it.-LS)

Mu’taz Hijazi, the man suspected of attempting to assassinate a Temple Mount activist Wednesday night outside Jerusalem’s Begin Heritage Center, was an employee at the institution’s restaurant and previously served for over a decade in Israeli prison.

Hijazi worked in the kitchen at the Terasa restaurant at the center, which has been frequented by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ther Israeli leaders. The manager at Terasa Wednesday night told the news site that Hijazi was let off work at 9:40 p.m., roughly a half hour before the shooting of Temple Mount activist Yehudah Glick.

His boss told the NRG news website that Hijazi had been working at Terasa for about a year, and said the restaurant was cooperating with the police investigation.

A man identified by Israeli and Palestinian media as Hijazi was killed in a shootout with police in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Abu Tor Thursday morning.

The deputy director of the Begin Heritage Center told NRG that Hijazi worked for a company that contracted for the restaurant.

“We check the workers who come in here, and there are security guards like at every other public institution,” Moshe Foxman said.

Mu'taz Hijazi, in an undated photo. (photo credit: Flash90)

Mu’taz Hijazi, in an undated photo. (photo credit: Flash90)

It wasn’t clear whether background checks had been run on Hijazi before he was hired. Palestinian sources said that Hijazi served 11 years in Israeli prison for terrorist activity during the Second Intifada, and was released in 2012. He was reported to have originally been sentenced to six years, but was given an additional five after he attacked prison guards.

In a 2012 interview shortly after his release from prison, Hijazi told the Ramallah-based Al-Quds News outlet that “God willing, I’ll be a thorn in the side of the Zionist project of Judaizing Jerusalem.”

“I’m happy most of all to return to Jerusalem,” he added.

Prior to firing at Glick at the end of the Temple Mount conference at the Begin Center on Wednesday night, Hijazi allegedly approached the rabbi, and told him, “Yehuda, I’m sorry, but the things you said hurt me.” Glick asked him what he meant, but the gunman did not respond, instead gunning him down, Channel 2 reported. Glick remained in very serious but stable condition in the hospital late Thursday.

Police cornered Hijazi at his home in Abu Tor, an Arab-Jewish neighborhood that lies on the seam line between East and West Jerusalem, Thursday morning. Israeli authorities said that they attempted to arrest Hijazi on suspicion of shooting Glick four times, but that he opened fire, was shot and killed.

Hijazi’s body was reportedly taken into Israeli custody, and his brother and father were detained by police. According to Palestinian Quds TV, Hijazi’s family said his house would be demolished within 24 hours.

View of the entrance to the Terasa restaurant, located at the Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem on October 30, 2014. (photo credit: Noam Revkin Fenton/Flash90)

View of the entrance to the Terasa restaurant, located at the Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem on October 30, 2014. (photo credit: Noam Revkin Fenton/Flash90

Islamic Jihad and Hamas both praised the shooting of Glick on Thursday. Islamic Jihad spokesperson in Gaza Daud Shihab said that the “radical Zionist” got what was coming to him, and called him one of the most dangerous inciters. Hamas spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum praised the “heroic attack” and called on East Jerusalem residents and Palestinians in general to carry out more terrorist attacks against Israel.

Fatah’s youth movement in Jordan also claimed in a message posted Thursday morning on the movement’s Facebook page that Hijazi belonged to the organization.

“With great pride Fatah salutes the martyr its heroic ‘martyr of Jerusalem’ Mu’taz Hijazi, who carried out the assassination of Rabbi Yehuda Glick,” the poster read. Glick remained in serious but stable condition Thursday after undergoing surgery on four gunshot wounds to the abdomen, chest, hand and neck.

Rabbi Yehudah Glick (Photo credit: Flash90)

Rabbi Yehudah Glick (Photo credit: Flash90

A website affiliated with also Islamic Jihad claimed that Hijazi was one of its members. It published a bio of Hijazi on its website, noting that he was arrested in 2000, burned and destroyed “settler property in occupied Jerusalem,” attacked two jailers with a razor after they cursed him using the name of God, beat an interrogator who had tortured him during an investigation, frequented the Al-Aqsa mosque, and spent 10 of his 11 years in jail in solitary confinement.

Police at the scene of a shooting near Wadi al-Joz and Mount Scopus in Jerusalem, on Monday, August 4, 2014. (photo credit: Screen capture Channel 2)

Israeli security officials were investigating the possibility that Hijazi was responsible for the shooting of IDF soldier Chen Schwartz in Jerusalem during this summer’s conflict with the Gaza Strip. Schwartz was shot twice in the stomach on Mount Scopus and was critically injured.


Jeffrey Goldberg’s Problem With ‘Chickens**t’ Netanyahu

Posted October 30, 2014 by josephwouk
Categories: Uncategorized

Jeffrey Goldberg’s Problem With ‘Chickens**t’ Netanyahu – Op-Eds – Arutz Sheva.

Do senior US officials think Bibi is “chickens**t”? Maybe. But here’s why it shouldn’t really matter to Israel.

Published: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:45 PM
Ari Soffer


If we were honest, that is the sole word which would be used to describe Jeffrey Goldberg’s latest transparent hit-piece against not just Binyamin Netanyahu himself, but all Israelis who “dare” harbor the notion that sometimes Israel doesn’t have to dance to America’s tune.

In it, Goldberg – a key advocate of the Israel-as-an-American-vassal-state model of “pro-Israel” – begins by informing us how an unnamed but “senior” Obama administration official chose to describe the Israeli prime minister: chickens**t.

You can almost feel Goldberg shudder with pleasure:

“Over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and ‘Aspergery.’ (These are verbatim descriptions; I keep a running list.)” he gleefully informs us (does keeping a detailed list of the epithets hurled at one specific world leader also qualify as “Aspergery”?)

“But I had not previously heard Netanyahu described as a ‘chickens**t.'” he continues. “I thought I appreciated the implication of this description, but it turns out I didn’t have a full understanding. [That's Goldberg-talk for "let me tell you what to make of this."] From time to time, current and former administration officials have described Netanyahu as a national leader who acts as though he is mayor of Jerusalem, which is to say, a no-vision small-timer who worries mainly about pleasing the hardest core of his political constituency. (President Obama, in interviews with me, has alluded to Netanyahu’s lack of political courage.)”

Naturally, like a vindictive little child in the playground, Goldberg then “ran this notion [i.e. that Bibi is chickens**t] by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly”, and one from whom he presumably knew he would receive the “right” response to fuel his story.

Surprise surprise, he was not disappointed: “This official agreed that Netanyahu is a ‘chickens**t’ on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a ‘coward’ on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat…”

The crux of this sophisticated and objective article comes right at the end, with Goldberg warning that as a result of the perception within the Obama administration that “Bibi is a chickens**t”, “the White House will be much less interested in defending Israel from hostile resolutions at the United Nations, where Israel is regularly scapegoated. The Obama administration may be looking to make Israel pay direct costs for its settlement policies.”

Such moves, he warns, could even be as extreme as a unilateral and public attempt by the US to draw the borders of a “Palestinian state” and present Israel with a fait accompli.

The “revelation” that one unnamed US official used a rude term to describe Israel’s PM, and that another official responded by jumping up and down, pumping his fist and saying “yeah, yeah!” made headline news here in Israel – mostly because that kind of undiplomatic language makes for great clickbait. (As an aside, it was quite amusing to see the Hebrew media scramble to find a translation for the word “chickens**t”, before unanimously settling on the somewhat liberal translation of “pahdan” – coward.)

But before we get carried away (as Mr. Goldberg would have us do), we must first ask: what are the actual implications of this story, and what is the basis for his doomsday prediction?

That there is palpable hostility between the Netanyahu and Obama administrations? Not really news, is it? And to be fair, it’s hard for Jerusalem to be surprised about US officials using insulting terminology when the Defense Minister (rightly or wrongly) decides to air his views on John Kerry by labeling him “obsessive and messianic”. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses…

Rather, Goldberg’s somber insistence that the dreaded “crisis” in US-Israeli relations is finally upon us sounds very similar to the periodic talk of “an impending third intifada” – that is, hyperbole used either by people whose analyses of the security situation are naive, knee-jerk and hysterical; or by those with an interest in ratcheting up pressure on Israel by issuing threats in the form of “predictions.”

It is into this latter camp that Goldberg firmly fits. This, of course, is the man who not-so-subtly threatened that Israel would be faced with “delegitimization on steroids” if the previous round of talks with the PA failed to pan out in accordance with Washington’s wishes – by “revealing” that the threat was made by Kerry to Netanyahu. It is also the same man who orchestrated a transparent, calculated political attack on the Israeli PM, by publishing a scathing interview with President Obama while the former was still in the air on his way to Washington in March.

In essence, this latest article epitomizes the art of manufacturing news in order to create pressure on Israel, very similar to the eyebrow-raising prominence granted to announcements of new apartment buildings being built in Jerusalem, or to Jews legally purchasing homes in Arab-majority neighborhoods.

The approach of fair-minded individuals to such blatantly manufactured “news” such as this, rather than taking the bait and reacting hysterically to it (in either direction), should be to soberly deconstruct it.

Why does a man like Jeffrey Goldberg create such stories, and what is the subtext to it? What does it mean for there to be a “crisis in relations” when military and economic cooperation is still booming, and when the majority of Americans (reflected in Congress) still firmly support Israel? More fundamentally, even if there were to be a “crisis” in relations, what is Goldberg actually suggesting Israel do about it?

Of course, as I mentioned, the motive behind such stories is to engender fear. The message here is that “America is losing patience” with naughty little Israel, and that Israel must therefore learn to toe the line better and fulfill Washington’s dictates to the letter, instead of God-forbid formulating its own independent foreign policy which may sometimes conflict with that of its ally. It is part of a wider worldview held by a significant portion of assimilated American Jewry, that just as they are besotted with and have tied their very identity to the goldene medina to the extent that they cannot do without it, so the Jewish state must act similarly. Essentially, it is a projection of the exile-mentality onto the Jewish state.

In terms of why such unprofessional name-calling and personal antipathy should even be significant: again this is all part of the “what will they say?” neurosis of the Jew in exile. Relations with non-Jews should not be marked by undue hostility or servility any more than our relations with other Jews, but rather with a level head and a focus on the physical realities we are confronted with, such as shared interests and a firm grip on one’s own red lines (even if the other party in the relationship doesn’t really know his own). That may sound obvious (and it is), but to those riven with inferiority complexes it is asking the impossible; there is nothing more terrifying to the Goldbergs of this world than not being liked (and, incidentally, nothing more spine-tinglingly pleasurable than being accepted as “one of the guys”, to the extent that “they” are willing to badmouth the leader of the Jewish state to you.)

What we are reading in his article then is essentially projection. This kind of antipathy from the non-Jewish world is the worst nightmare to someone like Goldberg, and so he naturally opts to use it as a weapon to pressure Israel into changing its policies. This is a tried-and-tested tactic of the Israeli left and of the Jewish left in the Diaspora, and as the influence of the legitimately-elected political left in Israel wanes, such illegitimate attempts to foist a concessionist agenda on Israel using means outside of the democratic process have predictably increased.

So yes, it is vindictive and petty in an almost childlike way – but Goldberg’s article must be read by anyone striving to understand precisely the self-defeating neuroses a free and independent Jewish state must avoid if it is to remain as such. The Israeli government must not allow these kinds of blatantly political broadsides to influence our own legitimate, internal political discourse, which should be conducted confidently, if cautiously, and with a level-head.

That is not to ignore the harmful impact of such personal antipathy. Of course, a professional relationship on any level is extremely difficult to maintain in the face of personal animosity between parties who are meant to be cooperating.

But if Goldberg is correct that the Obama administration is genuinely considering something as radical as throwing its most dependable ally in the Middle East under a bus because some top officials feel personally slighted, or because Bibi is not an agreeable person to work with, that is simply a reflection of how and why American foreign policy under this current administration will not, and should not, be taken seriously by anyone.

Pat Condell: Sweden – Ship of fools

Posted October 30, 2014 by josephwouk
Categories: Uncategorized

▶ Sweden – Ship of fools – YouTube.




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 603 other followers