Obama’s War on Israel

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


obama-kerry_2747856bIf the left’s foreign policy these days had a slogan, it would be, “Boycott Israel, not Iran.” The double standard, dishonest as it is ugly, is also the motto of Obama’s foreign policy, which benevolently blesses Iran’s nuclear program with one outstretched hand in the name of peace and chokes concessions out of Israel to the terrorists with the other also in the name of peace.

Both peace plans are going disastrously according to plan.

Iran has made it clear that it will dismantle nothing and that it will go on developing ballistic missiles and nuclear technology. Its military commanders threaten to attack the United States and boast that their ships are encroaching on America’s maritime borders.

The Palestinian Authority has shed the last vestiges of democracy as its leader begins the tenth year of a four-year term and its elected legislature has been discarded in favor of the PLO Council. Instead of a representative government, the Palestinian Authority has reverted back to what it always was; the PLO.

A Palestinian state has receded into the figment of a dream as elections have become a distant memory and Hamas continues to hold Gaza, leaving a PLO mafia in the West Bank to maintain its monopoly on cigarettes and other commodities while passing around Western aid money to its terrorist militias.

The more Kerry pressures Israel, the more bellicose PLO leaders have become. Fatah officials have accused Kerry of threatening to poison Abbas, the Palestinian Authority’s current President-for-Life. The accusation is ridiculous, but the PLO, like Iran, is feeling emboldened by American weakness.

The softer American power gets, the harder its enemies hit.

Obama Inc. however has eyes only for Israel. Its officials and its allied media apparatus in New York and Washington have decided to hold Israel’s Prime Minister personally accountable for any criticism of Kerry and Obama not only by Israeli Jews … but also by American Jews.

An Obama Inc. official said that Obama and Kerry were disturbed over “Jewish activism in Congress” and that the administration had informed Israel of its displeasure over criticism of them by American Jews.  Holding Netanyahu accountable for the comments of American Jewish leaders is an ugly Alinskyite tactic in which Obama uses Israel as a hostage in order to silence domestic Jewish criticism.

“Shut up or the Jewish State gets it.”

The constant monitoring and suppression of Israeli criticism was so pervasive that Kerry’s handler, Jen Psaki, denounced a comedy video mocking his disastrous diplomacy put out by an Israeli political group, sight unseen, while discussing expectations that Israeli leaders would rein in criticism of Kerry.

Psaki described criticism of Kerry as “not an attack on him; that’s an attack on the process. And of course that kind of rhetoric we find unacceptable.” John Forbes Kerry had become the living embodiment of peace. The peace process, whether in Iran or Israel, had become reducible to peace. Opposing it meant opposing peace and supporting war. And Kerry had become reducible to the process and therefore to peace. Louis XIV had only claimed to embody the State. Kerry claims to embody peace.

Meanwhile Kerry makes poorly coded threats about international boycotts and intifadas to Israel while promising Jerusalem to the PLO.

The lack of options is the theme of both peace plans. Sanctions on Iran mean war, claims Obama. A failure to reach a deal that will let Iran keep its nuclear program also means war. And so, in true Chamberlainian fashion, the only alternative to war is to accept any offer that the enemy makes.

The willingness to accept any deal is the traditional negotiating posture of the losers of a war, but when any alternative to a peace deal is considered unacceptable, the peace negotiators come to the table as the losers of a war that was never even fought because they had already surrendered in all but name.

When the Senate attempted a little bit of bipartisan pressure on Iran, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes began denouncing the vast Jewish war conspiracy and the left-wing of an already left-wing media shrieked that we were about to be plunged into a war by the Zionist warmongerers. The same outlets that give a hearing to proposals to boycott Israel, chant in angry unison that any boycott of Iran is an act of war.

Every good progressive in Obama Inc. and in its media corps knows that Iran, which took American hostages and murdered hundreds of Americans, is a victim of American foreign policy, while Israel, which is being cut up into a completely indefensible, broken territory for a peace that will never come, is its beneficiary. The terrorist peace processes are unworkable, but they were never supposed to work.

The peace process with the Palestinian Authority has always failed because it was always meant to fail. Peace was the brass ring that Israel was supposed to reach for, but never actually get close enough to reach, carving itself to pieces under the bloody knives of the negotiators in the hopes of proving its moral worth to the world. Dying so that it might be allowed to live. The Iranian deal is more of the same.

Perhaps there is enough tie dye in Obama’s blood for him to genuinely want a world without nukes, but if the US is to retain its nuclear capability, then like Oppenheimer and the other scientists who helped the USSR get the bomb in the name of world peace, he wants Iran to have the bomb for world peace.

Prime Minister Netanyahu thought that he might be able to trade one peace process for another, but he hasn’t even been able to trade concessions to terrorists for sanctions on Iran. Instead he has made the worst possible bargain, trading a self-inflicted punch in the face for an enemy’s kick in the teeth. Israel has once again ended up with the worst of both worlds in the name of peace.

Obama’s dual peace processes have the same agenda. They are both meant to destroy Israel. If the PLO can’t get the job done with intermittent terrorism and negotiations, maybe a nuclear Iran will. The goal is to create enough threats to Israel that it either ceases to be a viable state or simply ceases to exist.

The destruction of Israel flows naturally from the destruction of American power. Israel has to be undone, just as Mubarak was undone, just as the United States military was undone, to heal the humiliations of the Muslim world. The United States had to lose in Afghanistan and Iraq, it had to destroy its allies in the Middle East, to make Muslims feel good about finally defeating the United States.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Plan Z

    There’s a whole bunch of people full ready to noose him,
    He of dead glassy eye and of arrogant loose limb,
    The American Whore has a sore need to sluice quim,
    Or die of the cancer, this commie, this mooselim.

    • camp7

      pretty good.

  • truebearing

    Israel has absolutely nothing to gain by capitulating on anything at this point. Obama and Kerry are demanding Israel paint itself into a corner with the only benefit to Israel being the free brush.

    Obama’s “Muslim faith” is so obvious at this point that Netanyahu has to consider the US Israel’s most dangerous enemy, or at least most treacherous friend. Obama failed to enable the Muslim Brotherhood, so now he’s become Iran’s best ally. Israel has no choice but to emphatically reject Obama’s perfidy. Americans, Jewish and otherwise, need to reject Obama’s empowerment of Islamists loudly and relentlessly, hopefully to the point that it puts political pressure on Democrats running this fall. if Obama and his minions are whining about criticism from American Jews, give them more. It’s working.

    Republicans have traditionally won elections when national security is considered a priority issue. Why aren’t they making Obama’s Islamist enabling a national security issue for the upcoming election and 2016 as well? The US has never been in such bad shape when it comes to foreign relations and now Obama is actively trying to destroy one of our best allies.

    • camp7

      Concurred.

      “Now if there is one thing that we do worse than any other nation, it is try and manage somebody else’s affairs.”
      ~ Will Rogers

      Netanyahu is a sharp guy – he knows Israel’s fate will be ours. Esprit de corps is of the essence, “give them more” — unite with Israel.

    • tickletik

      I like what you said and take it further. None of us anywhere have anything to gain by capitulating on any point that these vile leftist swine come up with.

    • wildjew

      It is a huge problem. We have too many Islamist enabling Republicans. For me, it is a number one issue in a Republican primary. It is why I could not vote for Mitt Romney in our primary though I reluctantly voted for him in November. He was an ‘Islamist’ enabler; another apologist for Islam who fought conservative delegates to our national platform writing committee for the Palestinian terrorists and their cause. That is why he melted down in the debates with Obama (on Benghazi, Egypt, Syria, etc.) when it turned to foreign policy / national security. We can do better. We need to demand better.

    • Judahlevi

      There is no doubt that Obama is an appeaser. Courage on the world stage will never be demonstrated by Obama. He isn’t built for it.

      Even after five years of on-the-job training, he still hasn’t learned to lead – and he is not going to. He still thinks it is all about him.

      Obama has family members who are Muslim, and there are more Muslims than Jews. This is about the extent of Obama’s calculus on Israel. He doesn’t like Netanyahu (probably because he is a heck of a lot smarter than Obama) and anyone Obama doesn’t like is the enemy in his mind.

      Between Kerry, Obama, and Hillary it is no wonder our foreign policy is going down the drain. When third world countries thumb their nose at the US, you know things are bad. We really need a regime change at the top – the sooner the better.

  • v

    I agree with the analysis but I disagree with the conclusion. Israel has been in worst places before, even facing mortal danger from the enemies surrounding it. What Obama and his leftist cliques, which includeds so-called American Jews who contributed to his election, do not understand that regardless of what the Obama administration’s attitude towards Israel, Israelis are not suicidal and they know they have not created such a magnificent country in vain, and therefore, when push comes to shove, they will prevail.

    • wildjew

      Ultimately Israel will prevail, though she might experience another painful and bloody lesson depending on how far this prime minister is willing to bend to Obama’s will. I don’t know if Netanyhu believes his own rhetoric about what a great friend Obama and Americans are. They aren’t acting like a friend.

      D. Greenfield is right when he wrote: “Prime Minister Netanyahu has made the worst possible bargain, trading a self-inflicted punch in the face for an enemy’s kick in the teeth. Israel has once again ended up with the worst of both worlds in the name of peace.”

      • mcbee555

        I have the feeling that Netanyahu knows Obama’s weaknesses, and also has recognized how much of a loose cannon Obama is. The Israeli PM lives in the general neighborhood where Obama has made terrific errors in diplomacy wherever his questionable policies have touched.
        Israel has its military limitations, yet it manages to keep its enemies at bay in one way or another. It must be that Israel’s enemies realize it will fight if necessary.
        If it had the strength that the USA could muster, such ability would not be wasted and misdirected as our U.S. strength is now via Washington, DC’s floundering.
        Netanyahu may have made a bad bargain, but who is coming forth with alternatives? All I can see are criticisms while the man walks a mid-east tightrope for his country.

    • Drakken

      The way Israel has been fighting half azzed, poorly coordinated wars in the past ten years, I have my doubts, sure Israeli fighters man for man are worth 100 ragheads, but the leadership is just a little bit better than the arabs today, you have politicians instead of warriors in charge, that is not a good thing and Cast Lead was a complete clusterf**k. Time to quit worrying about fighting so called humanitarian wars and put on the mailed fist and let the raghead have it in spades, otherwise you Israeli’s are going to suffer terribly.

      • T800

        Israel keeps dealing with Gaza in HALF measures. They should buy or build MOABs and drop one every time there’s a rocket or mortar attack from Gaza. MOAB is designed to destroy bunkers and tunnels like HAMAS uses to store their missiles and munitions. The shock and awe from the massive blast would also chill HAMAS and the Gazan people.HAMAS would do everything to keep its sects from launching attacks. I believe it would only take one or two MOABs to stop the attacks from Gaza permanently.Plus,use of MOAB doesn’t risk any Israeli soldiers or costly armored vehicles.
        It’s time Israel did the job right.

        BOTH sides keep on doing the same thing,over and over,expecting different results each time.
        The muzzies make attacks,Israel retaliates HALFway,doesn’t finish the job,and the muzzies lick their wounds,rest and rearm until the next time. A stupid cycle.

        • Drakken

          Rolling artillery barrages and massive air bombardment, cutting off of any supplies, food and support would send the right message.

        • bigjulie

          Because we are talking about ancient philosophies, we are necessarily talking about attitudes that are ingrained as “truth” from birth! The “Ingrainees”, by the time they are able to commit any action for or against, are incurable “True Believers” of their respective beliefs and are supported by virtually everyone around them! Add to this the fact that one side has done an absolutely superb job of getting the “Ingrainees” to further believe that their real rewards will not come to them until they are in their version of “heaven” with their “God”, and they quickly erase any real fear of dying while here on Earth, if they die in pursuit of one or more of the goals set by their “God” and have this belief inculcated from the time they are able to understand spoken language, but are kept in abject ignorance of what is going on with the rest of the planet.
          Does this sound like a group that would be open to any compromise? Now, add further that this group will only compromise if their views are advanced, and further, that any particular compromise is only “temporary”…and now add that this group believes that everyone should believe as they do…OR DIE, and I’m afraid the non-believers have a real problem!
          The “believers” will only listen when God speaks. Thus far, in all of Human History, God’s most effective and belief-changing voice comes out of a cloud…a MUSHROOM CLOUD!
          And that’s why the “believers” are pursuing the manufacture of the means to make one!

      • Bob Bartlett

        Benjamin Netanyahu knows about war. His brother was killed in the Raid of Entebbe. He himself nearly lost his life in a war. He is attempting to create peace. What is the answer for peace?

  • Linda Cohen

    A brilliant analysis. Hopefully G-d will help us against our inept leaders. We have been at this point of total disaster and survived. Thank you for writing. I just wish you saw a positive solution to world events.

  • Omar

    This just shows how this administration is out of touch with reality. To the left-wing trolls who obsess about American “aggression” in the Middle East, if I have to hear one more thing about Mossadegh, the Shah, the 1953 coup in Iran and how that was supposedly the “reason” to why our embassy was attacked in 1979 (even though the coup wasn’t the reason for the embassy attack at all), I will remind those people about all the atrocities committed by Communists, both throughout history and the present day. I’m sick of hearing about the anti-Mossadegh coup. The left is obsessed about one little event that was minor compared with atrocities committed by other countries.

    • hiernonymous

      A couple of observations:
      1. I don’t think that anyone simply asserts that 1953 Coup directly caused 1979 Revolution. That said, it’s hard to divorce them completely, since 1953 coup puts Shah back in full control of Iran, and without that even, there’s obviously no 1979 revolution against him.
      2. Removing the coup from the narrative (conveniently) makes the 1979 Iranian reaction to the Shah’s admission to the U.S. seem irrational, when there was nothing irrational about it. We tend to forget that the U.S. embassy was stormed, not during the revolution itself, but when the U.S. allowed the Shah to come to the U.S. for medical treatment. Absent the 1953 coup, that Shah’s admission to the U.S. seems innocuous, and Iranian reaction paranoid – but when one recalls that we had already reinstated the Shah into power once, then Iranian fears that we were preparing to do so again seem much less irrational.
      3. What you are sick of hearing is utterly irrelevant to a public conversation. If you are deeply committed to a particular narrative, and you find certain facts undermine that narrative, then it’s understandable that you’d be ‘sick’ of hearing those facts, but that’s no reason not to bring them up.
      4. “The left is obsessed about one little event that was minor compared with atrocities committed by other countries.” This presupposes a child’s attention span. Are you not capable of remembering and acting on all? What sort of distorted Manichaean worldview insists on seeing the crimes committed only by one ‘side’ or the other?

      • Omar

        Once again, quit following me.

        • hiernonymous

          Well, that wasn’t much of a rebuttal.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        The attack on the US embassy was not some spontaneous reaction, but was a test motivated in part by the sign of weakness during the debate over allowing the Shah into America.

        • hiernonymous

          Daniel, good to hear from you. Before I forget, you’d earlier attributed to me some comments about Republicans that I challenged you to support. Did you ever get around to that?

          What role do you suppose “spontenaity” plays here? My contention was that you can’t understand the Iranian attack on the embassy without understanding how the 1953 coups made concerns over a possible American re-installment of the Shah credible. Was your comment offered in rebuttal to that, or as more of an aside?

          • Alex

            I watched the film Argot. The embassy was occupied more than once before they occupied it for good.

            There was no “spontAnEIty”.After several occupations and massive crowds the government of Iran knew the risk.

            they chose to ignore it or they secretly were for it, because they were calling the shots behind the scenes.

          • hiernonymous

            “I watched the film Argot.”

            Good for you.

            Not sure how the rest of your comment addresses the issues in play. Perhaps Daniel will explain how it matters whether the embassy was occupied ‘spontaneously’ – at this point, it seems wholly irrelevant to me. The more salient issue is how the Shah’s arrival in the U.S. would a matter of concern to any actors on the Iranian stage, and why.

            Omar’s original contention appears to have been that the 1953 coups was irrelevant to the 1979 revolution, and I don’t see how one could make a strong case that this is true.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The attackers weren’t concerned about the Shah being reinstalled, an absurd notion, but with cementing power internally within Iran while demonstrating that the US was no longer a factor in Iranian politics.

          • hiernonymous

            “The attackers weren’t concerned about the Shah being reinstalled, an
            absurd notion, but with cementing power internally within Iran…”

            The two aren’t mutually exclusive. As for the absurdity of the notion, let’s keep reading your own comment:

            “…while demonstrating that the US was no longer a factor in Iranian politics.”

            That’s a rather odd thing to be trying to demonstrate if it were absurd to be concerned about American intervention in Iranian politics.

            Speaking of absurdities, I know that following links on the new and improved disqus can be a bit unsettling right now, so let me help you out by consolidating the material for the other question right here. Here was your earlier post to me, in its entirety:

            Daniel Greenfield-hiernonymous•14 days ago−

            Kind of like the way you denounce Republicans without having spoken to each and every single one in the nation.

            I’ve asked you several times since then to clarify where I’d ever denounced Republicans, and you’ve remained silent. As a rule, if someone doesn’t want to discuss a matter, there’s no point in pressing them, but this involved you putting words in my mouth, and there have been several readers who have ‘liked’ your comment, indicating that your misreporting of my comments has fallen on fertile ground.

            It’s possible that you spoke hastily, confusing me with someone else. It’s possible that I chose my words poorly in a previous post, so that although I do not believe that I have denounced the Republicans, one might reasonably infer that from my comment. It’s also possible that you are indifferent to the accuracy and completeness of your comments, and you simply can’t be bothered. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, assume that you have a sense of integrity, and give you an opportunity to clarify. When, exactly, have you seen me denounce the Republicans?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Not odd. They wanted to destroy the domestic perception of American influence, much like Bin Laden.

            The idea that the Shah was coming back was absurd. The idea that other domestic factions could avert what happened to Iran because of fear or favor of the US was not.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            They were not concerned about dealing with America rationally and that is the most salient point.

            We can’t trust their judgment. No doubt they can develop any needed victim narratives and justifications for anything. Obviously we should not just hunt them down because of the past. But letting them go nuclear? That’s freaking insanity. The patters are the same: They are state sponsors of global terror. And we’re supposed to trust the most irrational regime in modern history, possibly including NK on that list.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            We trusted NK and that worked out really well…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Unfortunately there are people who believe that absolutely. No nukes went off yet. See? We told you so!

          • hiernonymous

            “The idea that the Shah was coming back was absurd.”

            So you’ve twice asserted, but you’ve yet to explain how, or why fear of such an event would be irrational.

            “The idea that other domestic factions could avert what happened to Iran because of fear or favor of the US was not.”

            I’d say that a counterrevolution fits rather firmly in the realm of “ideas that other domestic factions could avert what happened to Iran because of fear or favor of the U.S.”

            ———————————————–

            I will take by your continued studied silence on the issue of my supposed statements on Republicans that you lack the ability to support your original comment, and lack the intestinal fortitude to own up to that. A disappointing, but hardly surprising, outcome. I’ll chalk that up as a black mark against your integrity and say no more about it.

          • truebearing

            If I may butt in, your logic is lacking.

            “That’s a rather odd thing to be trying to demonstrate if it were absurd to be concerned about American intervention in Iranian politics.”

            Iranian lack of concern that the US would reinstall the Shah does not equate with the US ceasing to be a factor. We could have been a factor in any number of ways, including a full-blown military assault which would have annhilated the Iranian leadership. Khomeini was proving to Iran that the US was afraid to attack Iran — a gamble based entirely on his accurate assessment of Carter’s cowardice.

            Your theories on the motivations behind Iran’s actions are absurd.

          • Omar

            As I pointed out many times before, we did not install the Shah in Iran. He was already Iran’s leader. The last Shah of Iran came to power in 1941, when Allied troops invaded Iran and forced the Shah’s father (who was an Axis sympathizer) to abdicate the throne. This happened about a dozen years before the anti-Mossadegh coup. The only thing that happened in 1953 was that Mossadegh was removed from his position as prime minister, which he was appointed to that position.

          • hiernonymous

            You might want to study the situation a bit more before offering further comment. Focus specifically on what actual powers the Shah held, which were lost to Mossadegh, and which were restored to the Shah in the coup.

      • truebearing

        1. Wrong. People on the Left, as well as Paultards, do it all of the time.

        2. You assume the admission of the Shah to the US was the real reason for the embassy takeover. How naive is that? Khomeini needed an enemy to consolidate his power. It’s an old leftist trick.

        3.Maybe the issue is the veracity of your “facts.”

        4.”This presupposes a child’s attention span. Are you not capable of remembering and acting on all?” Huh? Non sequitur response. There is no reason to remember or act on all. The debate is about a specific event and his comment points out the selective moral outrage the Left employs when demonizing for political gain.

        What sort of relativistic equivocating insists on assigning equal moral judgement to all events, except those that are ideologically propitious?

        • hiernonymous

          1. I don’t know what a “Paultard” might be, but if ‘people on the Left’ do it all the time, they’re not thinking very clearly. Can you offer a few examples?

          2. “You assume the admission of the Shah to the US was the real reason for the embassy takeover.”

          Do I? That wasn’t what I was trying to communicate. I think that in most issues more complex than choosing one’s tie for the day, talking about “the real reason” – as if there were only one – behind most decisions smacks of naivete.

          “Khomeini needed an enemy to consolidate his power.” That’s probably true. How does that contradict anything I’ve said?

          3. “Maybe the issue is the veracity of your “facts.””

          Maybe. Can you show something I’ve presented as fact that is demonstrably incorrect?

          4. “The debate is about a specific event and his comment points out the
          selective moral outrage the Left employs when demonizing for political
          gain.”

          Which is it? Is the debate about a specific event, or is it about the selective moral outrage the Left employs?

          • truebearing

            1. You want me to dig backinto countless debates to prove it happened? No. Take my word for it.
            2.Yes, that was what you were trying to communicate. If there were other compelling reasons, you should have listed them. You didn’t, so you communicated poorly, or intentionally, perhaps so you could continue to avoid getting pinned down.
            3.Maybe it isn’t the veracity as much as the absence. The “facts’ you do present are usually nuanced to the point of meaninglessness.
            4.Why does it have to be an either/or? The debate is about how the Left uses selective moral outrage, and lies, to spin this, and any other, event.

          • hiernonymous

            #2: “Yes, that was what you were trying to communicate.”

            This is why I won’t simply take your word on Item #1. You’re reading poorly – whether intentionally so or not.
            #3: Translation: “Now that you’ve called me on it, I can’t show that you’ve said anything that was factually incorrect, but there must be something there, because you disagree with me, and I’m right, right?”

            What do you even mean “nuanced to the point of meaninglessness?” Are you telling me that you have trouble grasping complexities, and that if I don’t speak in caricatures and overgeneralities, you can’t follow along?

            #4: Look, you’re the one who said that this conversation was about a very specific event, then turns around and wants to hold a metaconversation about “the Left’s” debating tactics. It can’t be both.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “We tend to forget that the U.S. embassy was stormed, not during the revolution itself, but when the U.S. allowed the Shah to come to the U.S. for medical treatment.”

        Wait. You think that makes them more rational?

        • hiernonymous

          I think it makes the link between 1953 and 1979 more clear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Again, it’s of course a factor.

            But it’s not a valid rational justification for storming an embassy. It’s an irrational one. And just as they consider history, so do we today in 2014 with respect to how much we should trust them with nuclear weapons.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Absent the 1953 coup, that Shah’s admission to the U.S. seems innocuous, and Iranian reaction paranoid – but when one recalls that we had already reinstated the Shah into power once, then Iranian fears that we were preparing to do so again seem much less irrational.”

        It’s not irrational to look back in history and wonder about justice and so forth. It’s entirely irrational to storm an embassy because a fallen leader you don’t like is allowed medical treatment in a disfavored nation. A few protests? Fine. Even protesting at the embassy might seem a little over-the-top but people need to vent. OK, but storming an embassy is a rational reaction to an offer of medical care?

        • hiernonymous

          “It’s entirely irrational to storm an embassy because a fallen leader
          you don’t like is allowed medical treatment in a disfavored nation.”

          So it would seem, if your summary were an accurate and complete one. But bringing the Shah to the U.S. was not simply a humanitarian gesture to an old man; it would be the necessary first step on the road to a U.S. counter-revolution.

          “OK, but storming an embassy is a rational reaction to an offer of medical care?”

          It would be a rational reaction to an attempt to reimpose the Shah’s power in Iran. “But…but we had no intentions of doing any such thing!”

          Really? We’d already done it once. See how silly it is to argue that you can talk about 1979 without taking into account 1953?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So it would seem, if your summary were an accurate and complete one. But bringing the Shah to the U.S. was not simply a humanitarian gesture to an old man; it would be the necessary first step on the road to a U.S. counter-revolution.”

            I understand. But the criticism is not that they objected. The criticism is how they acted out. It’s rational and human to have feelings. But some times the actual behavior can be judged as irrational.

            “Really? We’d already done it once. See how silly it is to argue that you can talk about 1979 without taking into account 1953?”

            You can take anything in to account that you want. Just try to strive for more objective balance when you describe maniacal jihadis as rational actors.

            I think you some times react to an instinct to over-correct for perceived xenophobia when you comment.

          • Drakken

            The events of 1953 and 1979 are mutually exclusive and have no correlation to each other, the embassy takeover was a test by Khomeini to see if the US would interfere, Carter failed miserably. Reagans threat of putting the B-52′s in the air and blockading the Iranians coast is what they feared.

    • truebearing

      The Left likes to yammer about Mossadegh but ignores the well documented fact that at least three powerful ayatollahs supported the Shah and the British-American coup. So much for the Left’s credibility on that historical lie.

      • Omar

        The left also ignores the fact that Mossadegh had connections to the Iranian Communists, who were agents of the Soviet Union and Communist China. The coup saved Iran from becoming another Communist satellite state.

        • hiernonymous

          There’s a mighty long road between “had connections to the Iranian communists” and “saved Iran from becoming another Communist satellite state.” Can you convincingly connect the two, or are you indulging in a bit of Persian McCarthyism?

          Mossadegh also had ‘connections’ to the Fedaiyen – did the coup simultaneously save Iran from becoming a theocracy?

          • truebearing

            The road isn’t that long. A much longer road is getting a leftist to admit that McCarthy was essentially correct, even if he was a bit over zealous.

            You know full well that Mossadegh was weak, the country unstable, and we were fighting the insidious creep of the most pernicious ideology mankind has ever known. Removing Mossadegh was the right move. Too bad we didn’t remove some Islamists in the process. The communists certainly would have.

          • hiernonymous

            You seem to have left out some pertinent issues. Most notably, the primary source of ‘instability’ in Iran at the time was Britain’s full-on economic war being waged in the wake of the UK’s loss of its international case against Iran. One might also stop and consider that if Iran’s status as a member of the one bloc or the other were paramount, then antagonizing them over the status of an oil company seems a bit shortsighted, no?

            We also know that Mossadegh had made alliances with such parties before without throwing in with them, or committing to changing the nature of national institutions in their favor, so there’s no prima facie case that a ‘connection’ with Tudeh was tantamount to an intent to create a communist government (which would, in fact, undermine Mossadegh himself).

            “Removing Mossadegh was the right move.”

            The long-term effects suggest otherwise.

          • truebearing

            Hindsight is 20/20. We kept the Soviets out of Iran, therefore prevented them from getting control of Hormuz. Look what happened when we didn’t make the Soviets back down in Eastern Europe. No good ever comes from communists being in control.

            Britain caused its fair share of problems in the Middle East, but we’re talking about what the United States is or isn’t responsible for. Why do you lefties and the Paulists always lay the blame for everything on the US, when as you point out, there were other countries involved?

          • hiernonymous

            It’s a bit difficult to talk about this topic and pretend we’re talking about something else.

            As for why we should discuss American shortcomings, well, that’s a no-brainer: I do it because I’m an American, and I’m hoping to arrive at better American policy. You apparently see loyalty as the expression of blind support for anything done in the name of your country, right or wrong; I see it as highlighting the ideals we profess to live by, and trying to make sure we actually live by them. I happen to think that it’s the wife who gets her husband treatment for alcoholism who is showing truer love than the one who buys him another case. If it helps you feel better about yourself and your country, I suppose I could append a stock statement to any criticism of U.S. policy to the effect “…it’s understood that someone else has probably done something just like this, only worse.”

            That said, we weren’t talking about what the United States is or isn’t responsible for; we were talking about the significance of a particular policy decision – the choice to remove Mossadegh from power.

          • Drakken

            The choice to remove Mossadegh, was the correct choice and only prudent decision to make. In the end the only thing the shia and sunni muslims respect and understand is force, end of story.

          • hiernonymous

            “In the end the only thing the shia and sunni muslims respect and understand is force, end of story.”

            Well, that’s the end of the part of the story that you understand.

          • Drakken

            I understand these people quite well my friend for I always follow the 11th commandment, Thy shall know thy enemy as thy know myself.

          • hiernonymous

            Of course.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for why we should discuss American shortcomings, well, that’s a no-brainer”

            But your POV is based on the view that too much American power is bad, rather than simply saying there are bad uses of that power. It’s an important distinction that colors your bottom line evaluations. It’s a slightly rose-colored tint.

          • Drakken

            You just have to give those boys at MI-6 a lot of credit, they certainly took care of the communists at the time, and kept the mullahs at bay and Iran in the western sphere, good job for the most part.

          • hiernonymous

            Careful, another one of the lads here is insisting that it wasn’t a coup at all, but the popular expression of the will of the people with just the barest hint of support.

          • Drakken

            The only mistake the Shah made when he took power in 53, and frankly I don’t care how he got there for it is immaterial, is that he didn’t come down on the ayatollahs like a ton of bricks. As for the embassy Khomeini, the ayatollah tested Carter the great failure, and Carter failed.

          • hiernonymous

            “The only mistake the Shah made when he took power in 53, and frankly I
            don’t care how he got there for it is immaterial, is that he didn’t come
            down on the ayatollahs like a ton of bricks.”

            That’s a rather curious opinion. The Shah did come down on the Fedaiyen “like a ton of bricks.” He executed Navab Safavi in ’55; that’s when the group cast about for a new religious leader, and decided on Ruholla Khomeini. When Mansour was executed in ’65, one of the charges leveled by the clerics was that he had supported the Shah’s war on Allah, in the form of the repression and exile of many of the religious leaders.

            I must say, you give new meaning to the old adage “to a hammer, all problems look like nails.” Apparently, to this advice, you would add: any problem that doesn’t appear to be getting solved by the hammer can be fixed by swinging harder.

            “As for the embassy Khomeini, the ayatollah tested Carter the great failure, and Carter failed.”

            Thank you for the incisive assessment.

          • Drakken

            My assessment is strategic, if the Shah had dealt with the mullahs and ayatollahs by eliminating them all, it would have been a surgical strike instead of the hammer falling. That is not murder or genocide as it would seem to imply. I think you missed the nuance. Where problems like these that occur, I take the Skorzeny approach

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You seem to have left out some pertinent issues. Most notably, the primary source of ‘instability’ in Iran at the time was Britain’s full-on economic war being waged in the wake of the UK’s loss of its international case against Iran. One might also stop and consider that if Iran’s status as a member of the one bloc or the other were paramount, then antagonizing them over the status of an oil company seems a bit shortsighted, no?”

            So Iran could have been “pro capitalism” and align with us if we were nice to them about nationalizing their oil?

            In theory it is possible, but that would have required some pretty amazing diplomacy. But the other thing is that even if they were “in our camp” with nationalized oil, that still presents a problem in terms of setting precedents.

            The central dispute of the Cold War (aside from the intensely polarized factions) was how sovereigns would deal with private property rights. Stalin could also be seen as a power hungry tyrant, but still his fight was nominally about the “fairness” of communism, or state control over capital.

            What was going on in Iran and elsewhere was not trivial.

          • hiernonymous

            “What was going on in Iran and elsewhere was not trivial.”

            I don’t think anyone suggested that it was. But having just established international organizations for settling such disputes, so that we wouldn’t have to resort to naked power again, it turns out that as soon as we lost in those institutions, the naked force was back in play.

            It’s also worth considering that the exploitation colonial model was unsustainable, and that nationalization or something very like it was going to have to happen if we were going to progress to a more interdependent economic model. The day was gone when the sullen natives would just sit quietly by while the Europeans pumped their oil, dug up their copper and cobalt, etc.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t think anyone suggested that it was. But having just established international organizations for settling such disputes, so that we wouldn’t have to resort to naked power again, it turns out that as soon as we lost in those institutions, the naked force was back in play.”

            That’s kind of where I thought this would lead. But even today those organizations are not necessarily equipped to deliver the kind of justice you envision on a reliable basis. You’re going to have to come up with something more convincing to show that we were reckless and clearly had our risk calculations wrong.

            “It’s also worth considering that the exploitation colonial model was unsustainable…”

            You need to be more specific. A “colonial model” is not always bad. Exploitation is not always bad. I think you’re using weasel words to avoid making a clearer case that we were the “bad guys” on the scene.

            And even if there was a model we wanted to move away from (and there was, but you put it far too simply) it doesn’t mean that there are good and bad ways to manage those transitions.

            “…and that nationalization or something very like it was going to have to happen if we were going to progress to a more interdependent economic model.”

            I think that is roughly accurate, but that again doesn’t justify your assertions that we got our calculations wrong in the actual events.

            “The day was gone when the sullen natives would just sit quietly by while the Europeans pumped their oil, dug up their copper and cobalt, etc.”

            Maybe if the “sullen natives” weren’t constantly told they were and are victims by trading with us as they ramped up their skills and industrial development, diplomatic solutions would be easier to come up with in the end before the violence starts.

          • Trahald

            There are two problems with royalties on raw resources. These would be information on value. Information as economists see it and how to price royalties.
            Clearly countries like Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia did not forecast future demand and world market prices might be. Venezuela nationalized oil companies. Saudi Arabia threatened to nationalize the oil companies following Venezuela’s example. At the time we could have rolled over them very easily. We chose not to occupy the oil fields. We renegotiated. We had a contract which the Saudis had signed with their John Henry. So we had the right to tell them to fly a kite.
            One must ask what the oil companies signing the contracts in the 1920s and 1930s really thought the price of crude would be decades down the line and if their forecasts were accurate.
            Britain did not want to renegotiate their oil contract because they felt it would hurt their post WW2 economy which was coming back from the devastation of WW2. It was a poor choice.
            It would have been a better choice for the Shah to have gone to London to have a few drinks with the king consort and straighten things out. Would have worked better than Mossadegh calling halt to lections and all the other crap he pulled.

          • hiernonymous

            “Would have worked better than Mossadegh calling halt to lections and all the other crap he pulled.”

            Britain herself accepted the competence of the international court when it brought proceedings against Iran. When the verdict did not run as expected, and the Brits acted in bad faith, on what basis would the Iranians have expected a better outcome by talking to the king consort?

          • Trabald

            Britain’s acceptance of the International court and subsequent actions are related but still separate issues from Mossadegh’s election shenanigans.
            Two wrongs don’t make a right.

          • hiernonymous

            “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

            That’s very true. But being aware of the relationship helps us distinguish U.S. and UK motives from rationalizations.

          • Rick

            The list of communists in America with contact with the KGB is long. It is in the thousands. McCarthy was correct. he did not always have the list at his fingertips. He was fed information by people in the know.

            Dispatch International reported how the Danish establishment spiked a report which would have made public how many journalists and politicians were working with the soviets in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

            http://www.d-intl.com/2013/10/28/danish-journalist-jorgen-dragsdahl-was-a-kgb-agent/?lang=en

          • Drakken

            The Shah could have saved himself a t of trouble by doing what Ataturk did in Turkey,except the Shah should had his own Night of the Long Knives and eliminated every ayatollah and mullah in the country, then Iran would have been a nice staunch western ally against the Saudi’s. Mossadegh was a Soviet plant and would have if he had gotten his way, brought Iran into the Soviet sphere, that is without doubt.

          • hiernonymous

            So that’s one vote for “our ally wasn’t Hitlerian enough.” Thanks.

          • truebearing

            You think Drakken is wrong, but to quote you: “The long-term effects suggest otherwise.”
            Now we have religious fanatics who have nukes and will use them to trigger a massive war, all for the fulfillment of their deranged prophecies.

          • hiernonymous

            “Now we have religious fanatics who have nukes and will use them to
            trigger a massive war, all for the fulfillment of their deranged
            prophecies.”

            That’s a pretty long and tenuous chain of assumptions on which to build a recommendation of genocide.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s a pretty long and tenuous chain of assumptions on which to build a recommendation of genocide.”

            Genocide? Taking out a regime or its military capabilities is not usually considered genocide by rational thinkers.

            We’re still talking about purging jihadi leadership I assume?

            Or you think he literally wants to grab a few million innocent civilians like Ataturk did? I don’t think that’s what he meant. You might ask him to clarify on that point because I might be wrong.

          • hiernonymous

            “You might ask him to clarify on that point because I might be wrong.”

            I’ll operate on the assumption that he is as capable of you of reading and writing. Thanks for advice, though.

          • Drakken

            I don’t think that I misspoke at all, I stated that if the Shah had eliminated the entire Islamic class of religious leaders, he or his son would still be in power instead of the fanatics facing us now. So what part of that is unclear to you?

          • hiernonymous

            I thought you were clear as well.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Would that be genocide? By today’s definition maybe but here we have one thing being described as another in order to attack what might be a rational suggestion.

            For me I’d still recommend trials and such as part of the process so it wouldn’t even approach genocide. That’s like saying Mubarak committed genocide when dealing with his own jihadis. It wouldn’t surprise me to hear that that “grievance” had been suggested.

          • hiernonymous

            As I noted to OP, I’m more than happy to consider substituting “mass murder” for “genocide” in my comment, if you consider the latter too fraught. It’s an unconscionable proposal either way, and my criticism of it doesn’t depend on defining it as ‘genocide.’

          • Drakken

            When waging war against your enemy, every means should be on the table, period. It isn’t murder in a war setting, and make no mistake, islam has been at war with us since that god forsaken profit of evil came crawling out of the desert and screwed his first 9 year old and slaughtered his first tribe. Your sentimental utopian ideas go against 5,000 years of history and that won’t change for another 1,000 years or more, war hasn’t changed, only the weapons to do so have.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It seems unnecessarily inflammatory to use exaggerated characterizations, even if you have some reasonable basis for your positions.

            If that is your objective, to inflame feelings, then you’re entitled to do that. It just goes against what I think you want to suggest we as Americans should do in the international community even with our worst enemies, which is to bend over backwards to understand everything they say and do as “rational” and to always assume the best from them no matter what conflicting evidence we see.

          • hiernonymous

            Do I understand by your post that you consider ‘mass murder’ to still be an exaggerated characterization? Keeping in mind that OP suggested the simultaneous killing of an entire class of people, I rather thought I was bending over backwards here.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Do I understand by your post that you consider ‘mass murder’ to still be an exaggerated characterization? ”

            No.

            “Keeping in mind that OP suggested the simultaneous killing of an entire class of people, I rather thought I was bending over backwards here.”

            It was a class based on enemy status, not some arbitrary bigotry.

          • Drakken

            You call it murder, I call it warfare. So go ahead and keep applying those outdated principles where war is concerned and lets see where it gets you.

          • hiernonymous

            “You call it murder, I call it warfare.”

            You can call it creative dancing for all I care; doesn’t change the nature of the act. The proposal, you’ll recall, was for a head of government to seek out and kill his domestic political enemies en masse. That’s not ‘warfare’ by anyone’s concept of war. That’s how Stalin and Hitler dealt with their enemies. If the only language you speak is winning and losing, then take a moment to reflect on where it got them.

            As a rule, I find that the champions of brute force are those who lack the social skills, work ethic, or moral compass to accomplish the same ends by more difficult, but more lasting means.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s why you’d continue the conversation; for more of that reading and writing stuff. To come to a better understanding. I thought you approved of that kind of thing?

          • hiernonymous

            Sure, I like that sort of thing. But since you’re trying to interpret for him, and he’s still involved in the conversation, rather than waste time having you serve as an unnecessary middleman, I can just wait for him to post, which eliminates a source of misunderstanding.

            If you were posting your own thoughts on your own behalf, that would be different, but you were offering a service that wasn’t one. He’s since responded, so no worries.

          • Drakken

            So how many does it take in your book to be genocide? 1-100-1,000 or 100,00? You call eliminating the enemy genocide, I call it warfare. Frankly eliminating the religious leaders of any Islamic nation would be a good thing, then maybe these savages can crawl out of the 7th century, until then, good luck sucking up to them in the hope things change.

          • hiernonymous

            One common definition of genocide is “the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.”

            You’ve just said that you’d target an entire religious group, and that seems to fit pretty well. If you want to walk that back to a simple “mass murder,” I’m okay with that as well.

          • Drakken

            Our silly western notions of war after WW2 have been completely abysmal and self defeating. That is why Iraq and now Afghanistan are a complete clusterf**k. If you go to war, go total or don’t go at all, it is that bloody simple.
            Yes. I absolutely advocate the total elimination of the Islamic mullahs and ayatollahs and especially the madrassas.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So Hitler was trying to purge jihadis?

            Huh. That was a big misunderstanding I had.

          • hiernonymous

            “That was a big misunderstanding I had.”

            You don’t even seem to understand where your misunderstanding was, but no matter.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I thought Hitler was persecuting innocent Jews, not jhadis plotting to create theocratic regimes.

          • hiernonymous

            Hitler’s legacy is not one of a single event; Drakken evoked the Night of the Long Knives in his post. That’s why it’s helpful to read the whole chain of exchanges before stepping in.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            But I’m still confused. How would that many anyone “Hitlerian” if all they do is emulate the tactics of that single event?

          • hiernonymous

            “But I’m still confused.”

            So it seems.

            “How would that many anyone “Hitlerian” if all they do is emulate the tactics of that single event?”

            When the tactics and event in question are very specifically those of Adolf Hitler, they are reasonably described as “Hitlerian.”

            Good evening.

          • Drakken

            Our friend has an extreme soft spot for the muslims, I don’t.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He thinks “Conflict Resolution” is a science.

          • bigjulie

            “Knight of the Long Knives”…was he also a member of King Arthur’s Court?

          • hiernonymous

            Touche! Thanks, I’ll fix that.

          • Drakken

            Islamic countries are ruled by a mullah or dictator, always take the dictator, for at least they are friendly with us, the mullahs are our enemies. Sorry if I am not so sentimental as you are.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Evaluating risk factors is not only about calculating things that are absolutely certain.

            The truth is that caving in to states that nationalize also broadcasts weakness to other states that might become more likely to do the same kinds of things.

            In theory states have a right to nationalize private property, but when they stomp all over foreign investment, they might piss off other states. That’s just the reality of the situation. Getting angry is understandable for any of the actual victims. Getting irrational decades later means you are subject to judgment for that behavior.

            The whole Cold War was an ugly mess. There were indeed a lot of victims. But we shouldn’t get confused about which direction we should learn towards pursuing peace and justice according to our values. If you’re constantly assuming that there are no irrational actors, you’re going to be leading us down dangerous paths.

        • truebearing

          Naturally they wouldn’t admit that. Then again, when have they ever been honest about anything? The coup blunted the communist expansion, for which they’ll never forgive the US. Of course, they will never forgive the US for proving that a capitalistic, democratic republic is infinitely superior to their miserable failures at attempting to create something that can’t possibly exist, a Marxist utopia.

          The Left is like the inventor of the square wheel. He’s sure it will work, if only the round wheel is banned.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He wants us to treat violence the way POTUS does. You know, workplace, random violence just happens. We can’t really predict that jihadis might want to kill people for allah. It’s just as likely that a Buddhist would kill someone over religious offenses.

  • Steven M Tenneshaw

    “Holding Netanyahu accountable for the comments of American Jewish leaders is an ugly Alinskyite tactic”

    More like a Hitlerite tactic.

  • jtrollla

    Obama seeks Israel’s destruction and is intentionally facilitating Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. No other conclusion is possible considering all of the facts. Another inescapable conclusion is that Obama is a Muslim–he was raised as a Muslim while in Indonesia and is supporting the Islamic infiltration of the US through his all but open endorsement of the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Sgt Maj

    Meanwhile, liberal American Jews continue to vote against their own interests and helped put the Chicago thug in the White House – - twice, no less! – - and still play ostrich to his goal of destroying Israel.
    Not one Jewish US senator had the guts to stand up to the thug and say “no” to Nobama’s pact with Iran. Even AIPAC backed down to his pressure. Loudmouth Chuckie Schemer caught lockjaw. Debbie Blabbermouth hid under the covers. “J Street” is filled with brainless members who provide cover for the thug to proceed demeaning and diminishing Israel.
    We’ve been down this appeasement road before and sacrificed 6 million lives.
    If we don’t help ourselves and stand up to a thug occupying the White House, who is going to fight for what’s right?

    • zee

      Liberal American Jews are not voting against their interets anymore than other liberals are. Israel is not one of their interests, abortion, gay marriage and healthcare are.

  • mcbee555

    American Jews are identified as a Democrat voting bloc which includes secular Jewish types which religious Jews regard as hardly Jewish. Nevertheless, the Democrat Party relies on the entire minority to get themselves to polling places and vote Democrat. If it’s so that the Democrat Party is feeling heat from some Jews as regards Obama’s callousness towards Israel, perhaps the basis of that heat has arose out of respect for Israel’s Netanyahu, who is a man who leads, loves his country and its people, and endeavors to protect that land and its people.
    This cannot be said of Obama who is least respected for his lack of leadership, his lawlessness regarding the Constitution to which he took an oath to support and defend, and his general disregard for the United States and its people….apart from what he can exact from them via threat of federal power and his distortions of truth strictly for political gain.

    • nopeacenow

      What can you expect from a community organizer? He was elected because of the color of his skin not the contents of his brain.

      • mcbee555

        Yes, I believe there were plenty of people for whom it was important to prove to themselves they weren’t racists….therefore unknowingly, they voted for a racist. But, in the case of the American-Jewish community, the fact that they proved not to be racists must have been so dire to them that they continue to support the Democrat Party, which results in their support for Socialism and its lawlessness.
        Yet, they are a people, whether religious or secular, that has suffered from lawlessness against them, all of them, because when it comes to analyzing their political leanings, they are considered as a voting bloc and nothing more to the DNC.
        As unfair as it may be, to the Obama regime Jews are to these Socialists only as good as their last vote, because Socialism knows no loyalties. Jews had better realize that. They are witnessing exactly how the Obama-Democrat machine is trying to undermine Israeli sovereignty and still cling to being Democrats despite such Democrat attitudes.
        They are the people of “The Exodus,” now is the time to repeat that by exiting the Democrat Party for their own good and that of our country.

  • richarddonna

    Obama and Kerry have absolutely nothing in common with Dr Martin Luther King Jr who wisely stated in March 1968: ” When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking antisemitism.”

    • Omar

      Neither do much of the race-baiters and so-called “civil rights” activists like Al Sharpton and lunatics like Jeremiah Wright. More people need to follow the lead of respected political figures like Herman Cain and Tim Scott, as well as religious figures like Jesse Lee Peterson. They are the true heirs of Dr. King’s American Dream.

  • Omar

    I hope Herman Cain runs for the presidency again in 2016. This time, he would win the primary if he runs again. We need to gather as much support as we can to succeed, especially from minorities and the poor, who are victims of the left’s agenda. Join Go 4 the Heart today: go4theheart.org

    • Drakken

      He will go no where and the majority of blacks think and believe he is nothing but a uncle tom.

  • wileyvet

    Kill the troll. Kill Him.

  • Lanna

    Israel should stand up for her people, and her rights, the American government does not have your best interest in mind, they are not your friends. The people of America are your friends, but the government has other sinister motives.

  • herb benty

    God Bless Israel! Obama is a traitor to America and Israel.

  • Dajjal

    It seems Israelis are now at the receiving end of sanctions, and they do not like it.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      It’s a cold war tool. Obviously the target is not supposed to like it.

  • delm31_nabla@yahoo.com

    Why wage war on a nation (Israel) with an elective political system, free enterprise, a Western style judiciary, and an ally of the U.S.? All the while letting the one nation that hates us most (Iran) have a free ride to developing nuclear weapons to use against its neighbors?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Because those are the values and priorities of the left.

  • delm31_nabla@yahoo.com

    If this is how we treat our friends, we won’t need enemies.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      We already have 5th columnists. They’re really the only ones that can hurt America.

      And we let it happen too.

  • moriah steiner

    “Obama’s dual peace processes have the same agenda. They are both meant to destroy Israel.”

    As the nations try to force Israel into suicide disguised as ‘Peace,’ the Creator of the world, the G-d of Israel has what to say as a unprecedented cold slowly moves across the United States causing damage and costing millions. What is the name of this storm? “Pax”

    http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/winter-storm-pax-latest-news-20140210

  • vladimirval

    Obama is continuing his policy of giving the finger to our friends and
    allies and giving money and other support to our enemies and other
    despicable regimes. What can be expected form one who has no skills
    other than to peddle snake oil for his puppeteer handlers and always has
    sympathized with Islam? With every passing minute this guy is
    destroying America. We must get rid of his enablers in Congress and
    then in 2016 send Obama away never to indulge in politics ever again.

  • jlevyellow

    Consciously or not, the tactic here is to make Israel responsible not only for its own survival, but for that of the Western World. There are two possible outcomes that are possible if Israel should act militarily against Iran. Either Israel will win or Israel will lose. If Israel wins, the Middle East shall settle into a non-atomic future, all to the best, everyone will quietly agree all the while condemning Israel for breaking the peace. If Israel loses, all to the best to be rid of that aggravating irritant in the heart of Islam. The Jews will scatter and present less of a risk to world peace.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      That is the implied evil plan.

  • Marshall

    If these two leftist idiots are all about peace as Jen Pseki tries to convince (with out much success I might add) the world that this pair of fools are all about peace then I say God help mankind if they ever became sworn enemies. Get your head out of the sand Pseki. You are fooling no one with your stage managed rhetoric. And as for attacking the Jews for speaking out against this pair of tyrants, does that also apply to anyone else in the free world who choose to voice their disgust. Their woe is me poor misunderstood peace loving attitude smells and sounds very much like the despots that they are so vehemently trying to promote as the good guys in all of this. This pair have become a disgrace to all the good that western society represents, and no matter what historical facts there may be that totally refutes any claims that these vagabond despots have and led by a President without a country and a country that never was (and never will be). seems to be totally irrelevant to this pair of power driven fools who are digging a very, very deep hole not only for themselves but for their once powerful and mighty nation. If they want to continue to make themselves out to be the saviours of planet earth and play God , then I would suggest that they will do so at their own peril, particularly when it involves the apple of God;s eye and the land that he gave to Abraham as an eternal covenant. Perhaps this is going over their heads, as it is obvious that they will only accept their own advice . As a man is in his heart so is he.

  • Nina Sage

    The only politician who see’s the Muslims for what they are is Allen West.

  • Hard Little Machine

    I was watching Hamid Karzai telling the US to go get stuffed and I wondered why there’s never been an Israeli leader to be that blunt and honest.

  • Bernhard Rosenberg

    Rabbi Dr. Bernhard Rosenberg SAYS President Obama You Have Some Nerve. ISRAEL Will Not LISTEN To You : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig8c795KymA#t=63

    Trying to speak to Roosevelt behind closed doors didn’t help the Jews of Europe, 6,000,000 Jews were slaughtered, murdered, burned, vanished!

    Speak Up!

    לנסות לדבר עם רוזוולט בדלתיים סגורים לא עזר ליהודי אירופה, 6,000,000 יהודים נטבחו, נרצחו, נשרפו, נעלמו!

    דברו בקול רם

    ‘Trying to speak to Roosevelt behind closed doors didn’t help the Jews of Europe’

    Official in Prime Minister’s Office reacts angrily to accusations that Israeli leadership harming strategic ties with Obama administration: Seventy-five years ago, the Jews tried to talk with Roosevelt, and that did not really help the Jews of Europe.”

    If Israel is destroyed another Holocaust will have happened. Sis million Jews perished while the world abandoned us. Among the murdered was my family. American Jews speak out before it is too late.
    Downplaying the Holocaust — Sulzberger & NY Times: Anna Blech at TEDxHunterCCS – YouTube In my book “CONTEMPLATING THE HOLOCAUST” I have entire chapter on this subject. Israel is in trouble and we listen to Obama and others who have interests OTHER than saving ISRAEL from destruction. . Let us stop being politically correct and protect . Israel.. RABBI DR. BERNHARD ROSENBERG

  • HolylandIsraelTours

    Brilliant analysis. Israel will suffer as long as this Administration is in power, but ultimately it is America and the American public which will feel the brunt of Islam. Continue and America will end up just like Eurabia. It is not the first time in history that the superpowers have betrayed the Jewish people and turned against Israel. With God’s help and our faith in our justice, we will overcome. Only the truth will set the world free. In God We Trust.

  • fisheye

    Ok we get it..Obama is black & you can’t stand even to the point of sacrificing Israel. You are no doubt on the Arab side just adding confusion and hate as an argument. Just think a black man as President of the United States….what an honor!

  • George Frayer

    Can you imagine what would happen in the states if Obama actually declared war on Israel? Every Christian and every Jew would lash out in defiance, there would be no government left by the time it was over….War with Israel will never happen, i would hope even Obama as dumb as he is would know that.

  • truebearing

    You need to go to the back of the line where no one is subjected to your ill-informed stupidity.

  • Falasha

    You don’t belong here, boy.

  • Gary Dickson

    Another New York Times journalist.

  • tickletik

    No.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    For example?

    Got a list of faux grievances for us?

  • Well Done

    Always amused when Just Another Dumb Flick comes up with the “blame Fox news” meme. Along with the “you know nothing” motif, is has become just too cliche. The bias and stupidity of the Dem-front networks has become just SO obvious! Viewers are leaving in droves to watch Fox news. The spectacle of the ersatz President of the United States stooping to such a gruesomely pedestrian level as to criticize a news network is but one of dozens of signals this joke of an administration has lost it and don’t care.

  • Omar

    Why don’t you go work for PMSNBC, you f**k**g lunatic?

  • StanleyT

    And you know so much that you’ve chosen to list all your objections here … yeah, right!
    this is so typical of the demented left. Sling insults instead of providing facts – and accuse your opponents of exactly what you’re guilty of.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    American Veteran of Socialism,

    Go work for BSNBC.

  • ahad haamoratsim

    And the trollbot has elicited 9 responses (including mine) — so far — from people (including me) who could have been doing something else. I’d say the DNC is getting a pretty good return on its software.

  • Trollbot

    Trollbot?

    Truebearing or American Veteran?

  • Raymond_in_DC

    I had my own “blame Fox News” experience a few years back with my own nephew. It was the aftermath of the diplomatic storm over apartments in Jerusalem (naturally) and the ill-treatment of Netanyahu at his most recent visit to the White House. I started laying out why Obama was wrong and the treatment uncalled for, etc. when he blurted out “You’re just repeating what you heard on Fox News.” He was then a young fundraiser for the Democrats.

    I had to point out that not only didn’t I get Fox News, but by my training and working knowledge I hardly needed to rely on them as a reference. He had no specialized knowledge about the issue, but he did have his liberal talking points. No doubt he assumed that pulling the “Fox News” card would end the argument in his favor.

  • Bamaguje

    More like “unAmerican invertebrate.”

  • Drakken

    You should have told him if he truly believes the narrative of Israel bad, palis good, he should put his convictions and his money where his leftist mouth is and go join the palis and really show those mean Israelis his mettle, I’ll bet you a cool grand that all you will get is a blank stare and silence.