Brutally Honest

Netanyahu to Obama - Kiss my Jewish rear-end (UPDATED)

In so many words:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was quick on the draw Thursday in voicing clear displeasure with President Barack Obama’s mideast policy speech.

“Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace,” the response began, curtly. “Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.”
 
“That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.” 
 
“Among other things,” Netanyahu reminded Obama, “those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.”
 
“Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.”
 
“Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.”

“Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel.”

I remember well the reports during the Presidential campaign from media outlets expressing confidently that Barack Hussein Obama was his own man, that the virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Israel statements made by Obama's pastor of 20 years and by others affiliated with the church he attended and gave most of his charitable contributions to, would have no impact or influence over the man or his policies.

To which after today we should all be saying... bovine fecal matter.

The most radical President in history has just shored up those credentials by throwing Israel under the bus and by in effect siding with those sworn to see Israel destroyed.

This will not lead to peace.  Quite the contrary.  This President has stoked the fires.

Some might say purposely and nefariously. 

Crossposted at Wizbang.

UPDATE: Hamas has weighed in and incredibly are saying that Obama's offer falls short.

While the world slams Israel for defending her borders...

... the world ignores the murders of Coptic Christians in Egypt. 

Jews killing Muslims who are in effect invading Israel is anathema... but Muslims, who many claim are moderate, killing Christians is no big deal:

TWELVE Christian were murdered in Egypt. Two hundred and thirty-two people wounded. The death toll will surely rise as victims succumb to their injuries. And that's just in the past few days. In the same time period, more Christians were killed in Egypt at the hands of Muslims than people killed in Syria or in Libya as a result of protests, riots and resistance.

Two churches in Cairo were burned in recent days. Over the past few months church property has being gutted, vandalised and violated with graffiti. Churches have been blown up.

An entire community - the Christian community in the new Egypt - is under attack. And the world remains relatively silent. There has been no significant religious outcry, political redress or diplomatic pressure to stop the attacks. There has been almost no media coverage as Egypt's Muslims systematically, over the past few months, set about massacring Egypt's Christians.

The world is not only standing idly by, it is enabling the massacre. The US naively expects that a new era, begun in new Egypt, will ripple to the rest of the Islamic world. So in the midst of these monstrous mass murders in Egypt, the US has decided to send an extra $US1 billion to help the Egyptians ease the economic crisis that emerged as a result of the ousting of Hosni Mubarak on February 11. Muslims in Egypt are on the warpath - on the religious warpath - and the US is feeding them money.

One day, if we hope to survive, we'll wake up to this evil.

One day.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

The Goldstone recantation

Have you heard this story?  If not, I suspect you're far from alone:

Sometime Friday night, April 1, 2011, which was also the Jewish Sabbath, the Washington Post published, online, a rather remarkable op-ed piece by South African jurist Richard Goldstone. Essentially, Goldstone recanted his own “Goldstone Report,” a document which has been used against Israel in countless, damaging ways, a document which accuses Israel of possible “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” in its incursion into Gaza in response to the 10,000 rockets Hamas launched towards Israeli civilians in Sderot and southern Israel—a document which charges Israel with having “purposely targeted civilians in Gaza.”

Goldstone now admits that all the above charges are wrong, false, are based on too-little-information or on flawed-information. He partly blames Israel for not “co-operating” with the venomously biased Human Rights Council, but in truth, Goldstone really had available much of the information which is now contained in Israel’s painfully careful investigation of what happened in Gaza.

Israel looked into the false allegations that it had “targeted civilians” and investigated itself thoroughly. Of course, although Goldstone also charged Hamas with this same task—Hamas did not do so. Now, rather late in the day, Goldstone has finally noted that there are actually some important differences between an open, transparent, lawful, ethical, and democratic Jewish state and an Islamist-terrorist organization such as Hamas.

The New York Times, living up to its anti-semitic meme, refused to publish the piece:

Judge Richard Goldstone's expressions of regret about the Goldstone Commission Report for the UN Human Rights Commission into Israel's incursion into Gaza in early 2009, Operation Cast Lead, has not received the hoped-for coverage in the world, especially compared with the original report.

Hebrew daily "Yediot Ahronot" today cites a source close Goldstone as saying that he originally approached the "The New York Times", one of the world's top newspapers, to publish his article, but that its Op-ed editor refused. Goldstone published his article in "The Washington Post" on Friday.

We await Thomas Friedman's balanced response to Goldstone's recantation.  It should hit the streets about the same time Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan publish their own.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Obama to rebuke Israel at UN

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright could not be reached for comment:

The U.S. informed Arab governments Tuesday that it will support a U.N. Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity," a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal.

But the Palestinians rejected the American offer following a meeting late Wednesday of Arab representatives and said it is planning to press for a vote on its resolution on Friday, according to officials familar with the issue. The decision to reject the American offer raised the prospect that the Obama adminstration will cast its first ever veto in the U.N. Security Council. 

Still, the U.S. offer signaled a renewed willingness to seek a way out of the current impasse, even if it requires breaking with Israel and joining others in the council in sending a strong message to its key ally to stop its construction of new settlements. The Palestinian delegation, along with Lebanon, the Security Council's only Arab member state, have asked the council's president this evening to schedule a meeting for Friday. But it remained unclear whether the Palestinian move today to reject the U.S. offer is simply a negotiating tactic aimed at extracting a better deal from Washington.

Arabs extracting better deals from Washington has become a staple has it not?

Crossposted at Wizbang.

37 years after the fact, Nixon is the bigot

Posted by guest blogger Locutisprime.

I have to admit, sometimes I am slow on the uptake. Perhaps not as savvy as the sophisticated class and those in tune with all the subtle nuances of geopolitical gamesmanship.

Yet I am almost certain, that on balance, I still speak, read and understand the English language relatively well. And as such, I am usually able to comprehend even the most oblique commentaries and observations by those who sit in their lofty towers interpreting daily events for us lesser than sophisticated and ill informed souls.

Kissinger Satisfies Few With Apology

Jewish historians are dismissing an apology by Henry Kissinger, offered over the weekend in response to a 1973 recording of him saying that sending Jews to a Soviet gas chamber "is not an American concern."

The 37-year-old comment by the former secretary of state followed immediately after a conversation Kissinger and President Richard Nixon had with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. In the meeting Meir asked the U.S. to pressure the Soviet Union to release its Jews. Nixon and Kissinger declined.

"The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy," Kissinger is reportedly heard saying on the tape. "And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern."

"I know. We can't blow up the world because of it," Nixon reportedly replied

Writing an op-ed that appeared Sunday in The Washington Post, Kissinger said it was unfortunate that his words were taken out of context.

The conversation at issue arose not as a policy statement by me but in response to a request by the president," Kissinger said, explaining that Nixon had wanted two senators to withdraw an amendment to trade negotiations that would have tied Jewish emigration to most-favored nation status.

The amendment, known as the Jackson-Vanik amendment, passed into law anyway, chilling the detente that Nixon had pursued with the USSR.

My answer tried to sum up that context in a kind of shorthand that, when read 37 years later, is undoubtedly offensive," Kissinger wrote.

So, the vaunted Henry Kissinger (legendary Jew extraordinaire) is found to have made remarks not only less than favorable to his own people? But his explanation for the commentary is no more imaginative than to assert the dog eared retort that he was simply taken out of context. (Aren't they all?)

Well do excuse me Mr. Kissinger, I can only assume that I am amongst millions who would love to hear you elaborate on the proper context of those remarks. Either in the present day context or retrospectively thirty seven years. 

Perhaps it is really one of those subtle nuance things that we are always hearing about as it concerns international diplomacy. But please don't bore us with that inane and less than original three card monty that you attempted to play in the editorial pages of the Washington Post on Sunday.

Go ahead.  Please do enlighten me and the many others that are obviously lost and in the dark on the subtleties of your expertise in international diplomacy Mr. Kissinger and your use of the language to placate an otherwise bigoted president, for fear of not be chic in the most intimate of insider moments.  Go ahead Mr. Kissinger. 

On second thought? Spare me. I have seen the recipe for turning chicken manure into chicken salad before and yours is less than original.

"the core problem in this conflict is with the Palestinians"

Robin Shepherd is bringing us information not widely disseminated by our Jew hating friends in the media:

BBC censorship of inconvenient truths about Palestinian rejection of peace reaches farcical proportions

Hard on the heels of a comprehensive opinion survey showing that most Palestinians support a two-state solution only as a stepping stone to a one state solution after Israel has been destroyed, and of a Palestinian Authority report denying any Jewish connection to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, we now have the third emphatic statement of Palestinian rejection of peace and its pre-requisites in under two weeks, this time from the Fatah Revolutionary Council.

Yesterday, the Council stated its implacable opposition to recognising Israel as a Jewish state, as well as to a peace agreement involving land swaps. The first issue is critical; the second important. If Palestinians will not recognise Israel as a Jewish state the conflict cannot come to an end since, as the afore mentioned opinion polls show, Palestinian society will only view any agreement as a temporary measure until the conflict can be resumed on more fabourable terms at a later date. If they reject a priori the possibility of land swaps they are effectively saying there is nothing to talk about on border questions, in which case what is the point of negotiations in the first place?

The Jerusalem Post quoted an Israeli government official as saying the following in response to the Fatah announcement: “I would ask the Palestinians the following question: If the Jewish state is fundamentally illegitimate in your eyes, what sort of peace are you offering us? “It is clear that their refusal to recognize the Jewish state’s legitimacy is the true obstacle to peace and reconciliation.” Indeed so. It is crystal clear. But only to those people who are aware of the facts. So let’s have a look at how these vitally important pieces of information have been reported on by the BBC.

That, of course, was a joke. Neither the opinion poll, nor the PA report denying Jerusalem’s Jewish character nor the resolutions of the Fatah Council have been reported on at all. Now think about that for a moment. Here you have the building blocks of an immensely convincing argument that the core problem in this conflict is with the Palestinians and not with the Israelis. As the whole world is pressing the two sides towards peace talks, we have clear evidence that one of those sides is putting up insurmountable obstacles to a successful outcome. In other words, it’s obviously news worthy. If anything along such lines had been reported from the Israeli side there is no question whatsoever that it would have received saturation coverage, and rightly so.

But since the evidence casts the Palestinians in a less than flattering light, it is totally ignored.

Mr. Shepherd's focus (do read the whole thing and bookmark Mr. Shepherd) is on the BBC's negligence in bringing us this sort of news but the fact is that I've not seen it widely reported in the press here stateside either.  And why should I?  This sort of thing is devastating to any objective observer of the scene and it shows that the Palestinians are about as serious as to peace with the Israelis as Obama is serious about economic recovery. 

It's all about the lip service and it's all about depending on the media to report only that which matches the lip service.

Thank God for the ability to bypass the Palestinian mouthpiece press and to get to the truth.

H/T to Dan Friedman via email.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

The enemy is among us

Posted by guest blogger Locutisprime

Fourteen minutes of enlightenment and an expose of what is truly afoot in this country. Pay particular attention to the excerpts of George Galloway, former UK MP, terrorist abettor and expediter of Islamic infiltration and murder world wide.

Jewish settlers killed and maimed, MSM yawns then goes back to Jew bashing

Phyllis Chesler:

Four young civilians — human beings, fathers, mothers, one of whom was also pregnant, collectively the parents of seven children — were brutally gunned down by armed, masked terrorists. Their murders were openly celebrated in the streets by their attackers and by thousands of their supporters.

You would think that the world would recoil in horror — or that those who report the news, worldwide, would do so. Think again. These four precious souls were Israeli “settlers” and, as such, have already been so demonized that they are now seen as having provoked their bloody, pitiless deaths.

First, they came for the settlers. Then, they came for the secular Israeli pro-peace demonstrators in Jerusalem, Haifa, and Tel Aviv. And then they came for ….you and me.

Predictably, sadly, my three local area New York City newspapers present this tragic news in very different ways.

Allow me to first quote from the Bible of the intelligentsia, aka the New York Times, which presents this incident on page 4, not on page 1; the early pages are usually reserved for all incidents in which Israelis fight back so that Israeli “evil” is seen immediately and framed as among the most “important” world news of the day. The accompanying Times headline? Unbelievably, it is this: “Killing of 4 Israeli Settlers on the Eve of Peace Talks Rattles Leaders on Both Sides.” It’s really not clear who killed the “settlers.”  What is clear is that “both sides” are “rattled.” The piece opens with a paragraph that made me see red, both literally and metaphorically. It reads as follows:

“The killing of four Israeli settlers, including a pregnant woman, in the West Bank on Tuesday evening rattled Israeli and Palestinian leaders on the eve of peace talks in Washington and underscored the disruptive role that the issue of Jewish settlements could play in the already fragile negotiations.”

Note: This opening paragraph literally blames the past and future peace failures on the Israeli settlements. The Timesneither blames nor characterizes Hamas accurately. It does not say the Arab Muslim terrorist group, Hamas — the Palestinian version of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, probably also backed by Iran and Hezbollah, and the group which is claiming responsibility for the attack — is also responsible for a deadly civil war with the not-so-moderate President Abbas; an Islamist war on Palestinian women, homosexuals, and dissidents; and a jihadic war against the Jews, which began a long time ago and which will never stop until either such terrorist leaders and their propaganda are utterly vanquished militarily or until the Jews have been driven out of the Holy Land once again.

Ms. Chesler has more, all of it worthy of your time. 

Since she's penned the piece, more of the same has occurred but it's difficult to find related MSM articles yet this is understandable, it's just Jews that are being killed, just Jews that are being critically injured.  Just Jews.  Joooos.

Move on folks... nothing here to see...

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Should we ignore Imam Rauf's own words?

The Wall Street Journal has dug up a couple of letters to the editor written by 'moderate Muslim' and Ground Zero Mosque champion Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf:

Much has already been made of the imam's comments on "60 Minutes" following 9/11, when he called America an "accessory to the crime" and announced that "Osama bin Laden is made in the USA." He has also refused to call Hamas a terrorist organization. We've now come across two letters to the New York Times that reveal more about the imam's worldview.

In a letter published on November 27, 1977, Mr. Rauf commented on Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's historic trip to Israel and encouraged his fellow Muslims to "give peace a chance." That John Lennon lyric sounds good. But he added: "For my fellow Arabs I have the following special message: Learn from the example of the Prophet Mohammed, your greatest historical personality. After a state of war with the Meccan unbelievers that lasted for many years, he acceded, in the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, to demands that his closest companions considered utterly humiliating. Yet peace turned out to be a most effective weapon against the unbelievers."

He's referring to a treaty in the year 628 that established a 10-year truce between the Prophet Muhammad and Meccan leaders and was viewed by Muslims at the time as a defeat. But Muhammad used that period to consolidate his ranks and re-arm, eventually leading to his conquest of Mecca. Imam Rauf seems to be saying that Muslims should understand Sadat's olive branch in the same way, as a short-term respite leading to ultimate conquest.

To drive that point home, he added in the same letter that "In a true peace it is impossible that a purely Jewish state of Palestine can endure. . . . In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority."

Go read the excerpts from his second letter... just as disturbing as the first. 

We'll be asked to dismiss his writings, to view them from the perspective that he was young and more idealistic and that we should focus more on what he has to say today and the hope he now represents.

That's worked out well for us all with Obama hasn't it?

H/T Dan Friedman in email.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Israel a "scum state"

A typical missive aimed at the Jewish state from Islamists or the likes of Ahmadinejad or your typical leftist state side anti-semite... but what makes this particularly blog worthy is that it's actually something said by an Amnesty International leader who slipped up and in a weak moment allowed his bigotry to be unmasked:

On Monday the head of Finland’s branch of Amnesty International, Frank Johansson, termed Israel a “scum state.” Writing in his blog, which appears on the Web site of Iltalehti, one of Finland’s largest newspapers, he based his characterization of Israel on his “own visit[s], which occurred during the 1970s and for the last time in the 1990s.” Johansson further justified his rhetoric toward Israel because he has previously invoked strong language against former Pres. George Bush on Finnish TV. He called Mr. Bush “the biggest executioner in the Western Hemisphere.”

Turning Israel and the United States into whipping boys is hardly new territory among human-rights NGOs, but now a high-level official of AI has exposed his pathological obsession with rejecting Western democratic values. His biological language mirrors that of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who calls Israel a “cancer” that needs to be “removed.”

Once Johansson was caught with both hands deep in the anti-Semitic cookie jar, he offered the defense that “I am writing those [blogs] in my capacity as a private person, not as an Amnesty official.” However, on Iltalehti’s Web site, his title as “director of the Finnish branch of Amnesty International” appears above his blog.

He has since removed the offending post, turning back on the cloaking device used by so many Jew haters and this story will likely die quickly because in effect, cloaking Jew hatred is what the media does.

Yet for a moment, the light of truth was shown.

Crossposted at Wizbang.