The latest measure, introduced Tuesday as the new Congress convened, would withhold funding from the State Department until it makes the move.
“Jerusalem is the eternal and undivided capital of Israel,” Cruz said in a written statement. “Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s vendetta against the Jewish state has been so vicious that to even utter this simple truth — let alone the reality that Jerusalem is the appropriate venue for the American embassy in Israel — is shocking in some circles.
“But it is finally time to cut through the double-speak and broken promises and do what Congress said we should do in 1995: formally move our embassy to the capital of our great ally Israel.”
The measure is also sponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Dean Heller of Nevada.
Oh John F(ool) Kerry. He is a national disgrace on an epic level. His speech, hopefully his last as Secretary of State, was nothing more than a slap in the face to Israel, and all freedom loving people across the globe. He turned a blind eye to the evil acts of Hamas, of course, and shows his unwillingness to place the blame for the Palestinian/Israeli divide where it belongs, on the Palestinians. The fact is this. If it were up to Israel, there would be peace. The Palestinians could have their own state. And Israel would be their best friend. But, that is a fantasy. The Palestinians largely do not want peace, Hamas does not want peace. They want Israel wiped out. That belief is even laid out in Hamas’ charter. The reality is this, every time Israel has made concessions, including removing settlements from Gaza, they have been repaid by rocket attacks and terror attacks. But, Kerry the fool ignored all of that and blamed Israel and offered up a statement so demeaning as to earn Kerry a special place in Stupidville
Kerry did not mention that Jordan was never subjected to international pressure to grant the Palestinians their own state during the 19 years that Jordan occupied Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem; nor did he acknowledge that the Palestinians would long ago have had their own state if they had recognized Israel’s right to exist and abandoned jihadist terror. Leaving all that aside, Kerry accused the Israeli government of undermining any hope of a two-state solution. In this context of claiming that Israeli policy was “leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation,” Kerry admonished: “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.”
What? Is Kerry saying that being Jewish is somehow incompatible with democracy? No, not really As Andrew McCarthy notes very well, Kerry is showing his true feelings
Implicitly, of course, if Kerry is saying that a country with a Muslim minority cannot maintain its Jewish character and still abide by democratic principles, then neither can the United States maintain its Judeo-Christian character and still abide by democratic principles — notwithstanding that our Judeo-Christian character is the basis for our belief in the equal dignity of all men and women, a foundational democratic principle. It is a principle one does not find in classical Islam, the law of which explicitly elevates Muslims over non-Muslims and men over women.
As McCarthy points out the constitutions of Iraq, and Afghanistan, which the United States had a significant hand in drafting both name those nations as Islamic, and protect religious minorities. Can a Jewish state not accomplish the same thing? That is what Kerry is saying. As McCarthy notes, religious minorities, including Muslim minorities, are not granted those rights in practice in Islamic democracies. He also points out that where we DO see such tolerance and protection of religious freedom is in the nation of Israel. But, facts, apparently are inconvenient things for both President Obama, and his right-hand buffoon, John Kerry. This is the alternate reality of the Left, the
United Useless Nations, and Team Obama. So why is Obama, and the Left so insistent that Israel, the nation that truly desires peace and practices tolerance and freedom must change to appease those that do not? Ben Shapiro explains
Obama’s animus for the state of Israel stretches beyond the typical internationalist leftist view of Israel as a colonialist outpost, a cancer growing in the heart of the Muslim Middle East. Most internationalist leftists think that Israel is the cause of Muslim ire, that if Israel were to disappear, suddenly the Muslim lands surrounding it would view the rest of the world with fresh, dewy eyes. This is the same general philosophy that blames the West for the problem of Islamic violence, that suggests that income maldistribution breeds discontent that in turn breeds terrorism
So, why does Obama despise Israel, he is a Leftist, every major influence in Obama’s life has been a Leftist. And, Shapiro believes that Obama, like other Leftists simply has no use for “others”
Obama despises Israel because at root, Obama despises the traditional Judeo-Christian underpinning of Western civilization. He breaks down Bible believers into two categories: fools and liars. The fools are the “bitter clingers,” the idiot masses who fall into racism and xenophobia and Bible jabber because they’re poor and stupid. The liars are the self-interested characters who want to do what they want to do while citing the Bible for their support.
That is highly plausible no doubt. I would argue that the main issue with Obama and Israel boils down to pretty much the same thing every disagreement that Leftists have with those that support traditional Western values boils down to, Collectivism vs Individualism.
The West values individual liberties to varying degrees. Israel, like America honors a commitment to allowing gender equality and religious freedom. Such commitments align with the ideology of Individualism. The ideal that certain rights are inherent to people and that such rights are given by a Creator, or at the very least are simply part of every human. Such an ideology limits government, and that is simply intolerable to the Left, which is Collectivist.
To the Left, rights are to be defined, and controlled by the State. And Islamic governments, abiding by Sharia Law, is, like Communist governments in that individual liberties are non-existent. Even nations that commit atrocities, or that persecute its own people are therefore given a pass by many on the left. Any fault with such governments are ignored by the Left because Collectivism, that is the controlling of rights by the State, must never be challenged or questioned. Sadly, because of their ideology of Collectivism the Left views nations, like Israel, and the United States as bigger obstacles to a better world than they do radical Islam.
Sen. Lindsey Graham will propose a measure to pull US funding for the United Nations unless the UN Security Council repeals the resolution it passed condemning Israeli settlements.“It’s that important to me,” he told CNN. “This is a road we haven’t gone down before. If you can’t show the American people that international organizations can be more responsible, there is going to be a break. And I am going to lead that break.”“I will do everything in my power, working with the new administration and Congress, to leave no doubt about where America stands when it comes to the peace process and where we stand with the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel,” Graham added. He later told CNN’s Dana Bash that US funding accounts for 22% of the UN’s budget.
Watch the whole speech here
In July 2014, I penned a column titled “The Jew-Hating Obama Administration.” In it, I wrote:
Jewish blood is cheap to this administration. That seems to be true in every administration, given the American government’s stated predilection for forcing Israel into concessions to an implacable and Jew-hating enemy. But it’s particularly true for an administration that has now cut a deal with Iran that legitimizes its government, weakens sanctions, and forestalls Israeli action against its nuclear program. It’s especially true for an administration that forced the Israeli government to apologize to the Turkish government for stopping a terrorist flotilla aimed at supplying Hamas. And it’s undoubtedly true for an administration that has undercut Israeli security at every turn, deposing Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, fostering chaos in Syria and by extension destabilizing Jordan and Lebanon, and leaking Israeli national security information no less than four times.
I was right. Never mind the fact that the Obama administration has routinely ignored Jewish Americans murdered by Palestinians in Israel. Never mind the fact that the Obama administration has overtly pushed Israel to make concessions to terrorist groups.
Now we know that the Obama administration targeted Israel directly, in contrast to their treatment with actual Islamists.
On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama administration ceased eavesdropping on American allies, except for one notable exception: the Jewish State. The Journal said that Obama decided not to use the National Security Agency to target French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, or any other NATO leader – and Islamist leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has been accused of working tacitly with ISIS, got off scot free too.
But not the Jews. Obama said that monitoring Netanyahu served a “compelling national security purpose.” What purpose? Stopping Netanyahu from pressing against the Iran nuclear deal that places the Jewish State under the nuclear umbrella of a genocidal anti-Semitic regime.
The State Department defines anti-Semitism – Jew-hatred – with relation to Israel as “applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” or “blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions.” By that definition, or any other decent one, this administration is deeply anti-Semitic. Spying on everyone would be completely justified – nations have done this historically, and continue to do this. But ending your surveillance of Turkey while maintaining it on Israel is a shocking double-standard.
And it’s worse than that.
The Wall Street Journal reports that while other nations had their surveillance lifted, the Obama administration kept their bugs on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; they even grabbed communications with Congress, allegedly illegally:
The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears – an “Oh-s___ moment,” one senior U.S. official said – that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress. White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign.
Undermining an American ally in order to pursue a deal with genocidal Jew-hating mullahs in Iran was important enough to merit spying on the legislative branch.
But that’s fully in keeping with the policy preferences of this administration.
Perhaps the only defense to charges of Jew-hatred from this administration could be that the administration dislikes Israel from a position of pure leftism: the old hackneyed “Israel as an outpost of Western colonialism” nonsense. But this latest story shows that even other Western countries aren’t treated as Israel is. There is something unique and pernicious about the Obama administration’s treatment of the only democracy in the Middle East.
Democrats need not worry; the Jews In Name Only who populate its voter rolls will continue to vote for them, and the Democrats will continue to brandish their non-Jewish Jewish support as evidence that the Obama administration can’t be anti-Semitic. But public relations don’t change reality. The Jew-hating Obama administration continues its ruinous policies, unabated.
A House panel on Wednesday announced it is opening an investigation into U.S. intelligence collection that may have swept up members of Congress.
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s announcement of the probe comes after a Wall Street Journal report that the U.S. collected information on private exchanges between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and members of Congress during ongoing negotiations for nuclear deal with Iran.
“The House Intelligence Committee is looking into allegations in the Wall Street Journal regarding possible Intelligence Community (IC) collection of communications between Israeli government officials and Members of Congress,” Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said in a statement. “The Committee has requested additional information from the IC to determine which, if any, of these allegations are true, and whether the IC followed all applicable laws, rules, and procedures.”
According to the Journal, White House officials thought the information it uncovered could potentially be used to counter Netanyahu’s campaign against the nuclear accord but ultimately decided not to formally ask the National Security Agency to keep tabs on the Israeli premier’s maneuverings on Capitol Hill. The White House also gave the NSA the authority to determine what it would and wouldn’t do with the information, U.S. officials said.
“We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’” one senior U.S. official recalled in an interview with the Journal. “We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’”
The correspondence the agency revealed redacted the names of lawmakers, as well as personal information and “trash talk” about the White House, the Journal reported.
While Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama do their best to paper over the brutality of the Iranian regime and force through a nuclear agreement, Iran’s religious leader has another issue on his mind: The destruction of Israel.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a 416-page screed against the Jewish state. A blurb on the back cover credits Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”
A friend sent me a copy from Iran, the only place the book is currently available, though an Arabic translation is promised soon.
Obama administration officials likely hope that no American even hears about it.
‘Reclaiming Muslim lands’
Khamenei makes his position clear from the start: Israel has no right to exist as a state.
He uses three words. One is “nabudi” which means “annihilation.” The other is “imha” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval” meaning “effacement.”
Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is not based on anti-Semitism, which he describes as a European phenomenon. His position is instead based on “well-established Islamic principles.”
One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims. What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims.
Khomeinists are not alone in this belief.
Dozens of maps circulate in the Muslim world showing the extent of Muslim territories lost to the Infidel that must be recovered.
These include large parts of Russia and Europe, almost a third of China, the whole of India and parts of The Philippines and Thailand.
However, according to Khamenei, Israel, which he labels as “adou” and “doshman,” meaning “enemy” and “foe,” is a special case for three reasons.
The first is that it is a loyal “ally of the American Great Satan” and a key element in its “evil scheme” to dominate “the heartland of the Ummah.”
The second reason is that Israel has waged war on Muslims on a number of occasions, thus becoming “a hostile infidel,” or “kaffir al-harbi.”
Finally, Israel is a special case because it occupies Jerusalem, which Khamenei describes as “Islam’s third Holy City.”
He intimates that one of his “most cherished wishes” is to one day pray in Jerusalem.
Khamenei insists that he is not recommending “classical wars” to wipe Israel off the map. Nor does he want to “massacre the Jews.” What he recommends is a long period of low-intensity warfare designed to make life unpleasant if not impossible for a majority of Israeli Jews so that they leave the country.
His calculation is based on the assumption that large numbers of Israelis have double-nationality and would prefer emigration to the United States and Europe to daily threats of death.
Khamenei makes no reference to Iran’s nuclear program. But the subtext is that a nuclear-armed Iran would make Israel think twice before trying to counter Khamenei’s strategy by taking military action against the Islamic Republic.
In Khamenei’s analysis, once the cost of staying in Israel has become too high for many Jews, Western powers, notably the US, which have supported the Jewish state for decades, might decide that the cost of doing so is higher than possible benefits.
Thanks to President Obama, the US has already distanced itself from Israel to a degree unimaginable a decade ago.
Khamenei counts on what he sees as “Israel fatigue.” The international community would start looking for what he calls “a practical and logical mechanism” to end the old conflict.
Khamenei’s “practical and logical mechanism” excludes the two-state formula in any form.
“The solution is a one-state formula,” he declares. That state, to be called Palestine, would be under Muslim rule but would allow non-Muslims, including some Israeli Jews who could prove “genuine roots” in the region to stay as “protected minorities.”
Under Khamenei’s scheme, Israel, plus the West Bank and Gaza, would revert to a United Nations mandate for a brief period during which a referendum is held to create the new state of Palestine.
All Palestinians and their descendants, wherever they are, would be able to vote, while Jews “who have come from other places” would be excluded.
Khamenei does not mention any figures for possible voters in his dream referendum. But studies by the Islamic Foreign Ministry in Tehran suggest that at least eight million Palestinians across the globe would be able to vote against 2.2 million Jews “acceptable” as future second-class citizens of new Palestine. Thus, the “Supreme Guide” is certain of the results of his proposed referendum.
He does not make clear whether the Kingdom of Jordan, which is located in 80% of historic Palestine, would be included in his one-state scheme. However, a majority of Jordanians are of Palestinian extraction and would be able to vote in the referendum and, logically, become citizens of the new Palestine.
Khamenei boasts about the success of his plans to make life impossible for Israelis through terror attacks from Lebanon and Gaza. His latest scheme is to recruit “fighters” in the West Bank to set up Hezbollah-style units.
“We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hezbollah against Israel in 2006 and in the 22-day war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip,” he boasts.
Khamenei describes Israel as “a cancerous tumor” whose elimination would mean that “the West’s hegemony and threats will be discredited” in the Middle East. In its place, he boasts, “the hegemony of Iran will be promoted.”
Khamenei’s book also deals with the Holocaust which he regards either as “a propaganda ploy” or a disputed claim. “If there was such a thing,” he writes, “we don’t know why it happened and how.”
This is what Iran’s leaders are preaching to their people and their allies in the Middle East. Do we really want to give succor?
President Reuven Rivlin has refused to meet with former U.S. president Jimmy Carter during his upcoming visit to the region, due to his stances over recent years seen as “anti-Israel.”
In recent years, Carter has become one of the most prominent critics of Israel, notably when during last summer’s war with Hamas he denounced the IDF’s Operation Protective Edge in Gaza as illegitimate.
An Israeli diplomatic official told The Jerusalem Post’s Hebrew sister publication Ma’ariv that the Foreign Ministry recommended Rivlin not meet with Carter, in order to transmit the message that those who harm Israel will not meet with the president.
Carter is reportedly expected to visit Israel and the Palestinian territories in the coming weeks.
Carter has criticized successive U.S. administrations for failing to clinch an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. He has advocated controversial positions, chief among them that the West should engage Hamas in diplomatic negotiations.