Eisenhower and Obama

America demands Israeli concessions for peace, Israel stubbornly refuses to relent under the pressure. The President tells Israel to withdraw from the lands it occupied in the war; the Prime Minister doggedly attempts to deflect the pressure and hold onto as much as possible. The Israeli public backs the PM; coalition members and opposition parties castigate American interference and lopsided behavior against Israel.

The American administration threatens economic punishment should Israel not fall into line. The administration faces significant criticism for this not only from Jewish groups like the Bnai Brith, but scathing attacks for its conduct by congress.

The President, of course, is Dwight Eisenhower, and the year is 1956. The war was the 1956 Suez-Sinai War between Israel and Egypt, and the concessions referred to are the Sinai and Gaza Strip, to be vacated with no preconditions. The Israeli PM is David Ben-Gurion.

The similarities to today’s Israeli-American feud are striking. Obama demands; Netanyahu, bolstered by his hawkish government, refuses to give in to all his demands. No doubt the circumstances of the 1956-1957 crisis, as well as the 1975 diplomatic scuffle over the Sinai between Kissinger and Yitzhak Rabin both weigh heavily in the heart and mind of Bibi Netanyahu. Direct confrontation with an American president is the last thing he wants.

But a lot has changed since 1956 and 1975. Israel today is far larger, more developed, and less dependent on America. Bibi’s anxiety is misplaced. Israel in 1956 had just under 2 million citizens, in 1975 less than 3.5 million, but today well over 7 million. While American aid made up nearly 20% of the Israeli government’s budget in as late as the 1980’s, today it makes up only about 4-5%.

While Israel used to be heavily debt-ridden, today its net debt (about $30 billion) is smaller than what is owed to it (about $60 billion), and most of the money owed to Israel is from the US federal government. US loan guarantees, which were used as a means to coerce Israel not only in 1956 and 1975 but also during the Bush-Shamir spat in the late 80s/early 90s, now are essentially meaningless. Israel has a massive surplus of foreign currency and already owns nearly $60 billion of America’s debt.

In 1956 David Ben-Gurion refused to capitulate to Eisenhower’s demands for half a year, until a compromise was reached in which Israel ceded the Sinai and Gaza in exchange for UN forces in both areas and explicit US promises regarding Israeli access to the Gulf of Aqaba. Though the decision was certainly a far cry from Ben-Gurion’s November 1956 speech pledging to retain both the Sinai and Gaza, it marked the first time that an Israeli Premier would stand toe-to-toe with an antagonistic American administration and not be the first to blink.

Eisenhower’s administration led the UN in condemning Israel and threatened to orchestrate international economic sanctions against Israel. Israel, it was estimated, could survive for 12 months in such a scenario, before collapsing in the face of sanctions. Ben-Gurion was certainly aware of the intense pressure Eisenhower faced from congress, which refused to support his legislation as long as the specter of sanctions loomed over Israel.

If Ben-Gurion could stand up against Eisenhower for at least a compromise, Netanyahu is in a far better position to stand up and give Obama nothing. With his coalition partners Lieberman and Eli Yishai giving him full support and Likud MKs demanding no concessions, the only question is, will Netanyahu have the prescience to not only remember 1956, but see the advantages Israel now has.

The Baron and the Serf

If extraterrestrials were to ever visit our planet, they would have a devil of a time understanding it. Most befuddling would be this strange little misshapen political entity known as “Israel”.

Carved out of the heart of the Middle East through blood and sweat by hundreds of thousands of Jews seeking to end the millennia-old oppression they suffered at the hands of gentiles, the state was meant to once and for all terminate the insidious baron-serf relationship through which Jews were always dominated by gentiles in every country both Muslim and Christian; politically, economically, and socially.

This movement to make a state, known contemporarily as Zionism, came about largely as a reaction to the failure of the gentile-initiated Emancipation in Europe, which freed Jews as individuals but not as a collective from age-old oppression.
What then would an outsider, uninitiated in the finer points of contemporary politics, make of this state, Israel groveling to Biden and Hillary Clinton in a pitiful attempt to apologize over the construction of homes in its capital???

Sadly, this is nothing new. From the get-go the Jewish establishment in Israel related to the US as the new Baron for the Jewish collective. The Zionist movement, originally meant to terminate the master-slave relationship now merely sought to replace the old European and Arab masters with a new American one.

American demands on Israel are always the same: give up land to your sworn enemies who seek your destruction. The territories demanded change with time, but only because Israel’s borders miraculously expand faster than American efforts to reduce them. From 1948 onward the demand was that Israel surrender the Negev (about half of the state of Israel). After 1967 the demand shifted to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan, and Sinai.

One of the most pernicious actions of the US, however, has been its refusal since 1948, to recognize Israeli control over WEST Jerusalem as well as its status as the capital of Israel from 1950 on. The issue of relocating the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem did not begin after the 1967 War, it began in 1953 when the Israeli Foreign Ministry relocated to Jerusalem, following the earlier relocation of the Knesset. The US State Dept. to this day will not recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israeli territory, and all passports listing Jerusalem as place of birth have “Israel” removed.

The message is clear and astounding: it is not the “unsettled borders” of east Jerusalem that prevent American recognition of Israeli control, but Israeli control per se of any part of Jerusalem, east or west, that is not recognized. America, the alleged ally of Israel, doesn’t even recognize its control of its capital!
How then could one explain to the uninformed observer the Prime Minister of the allegedly free state of Israel groveling to an ally which doesn’t recognize the most basic right of a free state – the building of homes in its territory?

Obama and His One Sided Freeze: The New Arab West Bank Settlement

While US president Barak Obama and his Secretary of State Clinton lean heavily on Israel to ensure that not even a single new building be permitted for Jews lest facts be created on the ground, the Palestinian authority has begun work on an entire new Arab settlement.

Called Rawabi, the town is planned to house tens of thousands in its initial stages and hundreds of thousands when completed. The new Arab settlement will be built in close proximity to the Jewish town of Ateret, and will require a new Arab-only highway to be constructed.

Part of this highway will be built illegally on Israeli controlled land – referred to as Area C – and may result in the removal of the current roads which service the already existing Jewish towns in the area.

So can anyone actually be surprised that Obama has a single digit approval rating among Israeli Jews? Obama is openly biased in favor of the Arabs, a fact made abundantly clear by his disgusting anti-Semitic speech in Cairo where he actually compared Israel to South Africa and the segregation-era American South. Though Americans, especially Jewish ones, let these slanderous comparisons slide, Israelis were listening.

We knew exactly what Obama was in 2008; that feeling was confirmed in 2009, and in 2010 we are already feeling the weight of this anti-Israel goon’s dictatorial demands.

Do They Still Have It?

It’s been 16 years since the Republican takeover of congress in 1994. Hitherto the minority party in both chambers of congress, the Republicans surged to take over both; going from 44 Senators and 176 Reps to 52 and 230 respectively.

The Republicans capitalized on anxiety over President Clinton, then in the middle of his first term. More importantly the GOP mobilized its conservative base of support and pledge loyalty to the spirit of the Constitution with its Contract with America. Voters who had been frustrated over George Bush’s tax hike and failure to stick to conservative principles saw a newer, wiser GOP emerge in 1994.

Since then, however, the party has gone back to its old ways, like a dog returning to its vomit. George W. Bush was as much a failure as a president as his father; spending more than Clinton and racking up a massive debt while paying only lip-service to the voters who put him in office.

Obama’s 2008 election was a wake-up call, reminding us what is at stake if the GOP strays from its values. The election upset last night in Massachusetts by Scott Brown over his Democratic opponent shows the potential for a great rebound to the conservative values that put the GOP in power in 1994. The question is does the Republican leadership have what it takes? Can the GOP outgrow the Iraq War, support for big-business, and the daunting image of W. Bush’s failure?

The mid-term elections this November are, more than a critique of Obama’s disastrous presidency, a test for the Republican party. Last night’s upset in far-left Massachusetts shows that if they are true to their roots, they can reshape America’s political map in a big way. If not, it will be politics as usual.

Israel on the rise, America on the decline?

Earlier this week Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell made a thinly veiled threat to Israel. Should Israel not immediately resume direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, America, it was implied, would with hold loan guarantees for the Jewish state.

The Israeli response was pleasantly surprising. “We can live without US money” replied Danny Danon, a member of the ruling Likud party. Ignore the fact that Israel HAS been bending over backwards to tempt the PA back into negotiations. This is a welcome change for Israeli leaders who have traditionally heeled to American administrations, particularly when the threat of withholding money is sounded.
This is yet another sign of the waning influence of America in Israeli politics. This is rooted in two developments; 1) the gradual strengthening (and capitalization) of the Israeli economy, and 2) the trend towards a more right-wing and independent mindset in Israel.

Compare the reaction in the early 1990s when James Baker, Secretary of State for then President George HW Bush, threatened Israel in exactly the same manner. The Bush Administration threatened then attempted to block loans to Israel to pressure it to end the expansion of settlements in the liberated territories of 1967. Though the move was ultimately blocked by Congress, it sent shock waves through Israeli politics, and aided in the 1992 takeover by Yitzhak Rabin’s Labor party.

After nearly two decades of suicide bombings and a total failure of the negotiating process, sentiments in Israel have changed, shifting to the right and away from dependence on foreign countries.

This highlights a change in Israel to the right; fiscally, socially, and foreign policy-wise; which mirrors the exact opposite movement in America.

America has, since Reagan left office in January 1989, lacked a truly conservative proactive leadership. At best there were watered down Neocons like George W, weak kneed leaders like his father who caved into every demand of the Democratic Congress, or Congressional leaders during Clinton’s Administration who merely reacted to Democratic initiatives. Today’s Republican party is even worse; capable of nothing more than symbolic resistance to Obama’s programs.

And Americans have, lacking a real alternative, really turned to the left. America and Israel truly are moving in opposite directions: America towards a more liberal, socialist, debt-ridden future (the debt is already 13 trillion dollars, or 100% of the annual GDP), while Israel grows more conservative and capitalist, with a booming economy and now a negative total debt (they owe 28 billion dollars and are owed 60 billion, mostly by the US incidently).

The Year of Obama: 2009 in Review

As the calendar year comes to a close, it’s important to reflect on the challenges and opportunities laid out since Obama took office in January; the critical points of 2009 that will define 2010.

First let’s look at the bad. The two truly dangerous failures of the Obama administration thus far are:

1) The economy: Obama pledged to implement a recovery plan that would yield immediate results. Nearly 12 months later the unprecedented $3 trillion deficit has yet to create new jobs or stabilize the still perilous housing market. Besides being another failed government spending program, the recovery plan has left America with a $13 trillion national debt, which now exceeds the annual GDP. That means America is living on borrowed money more than ever.

The addiction of debt-based spending is a downward spiral that results in more and more American currency going to foreign bond holders, thus devaluing the dollar. Not only does this make all imported goods more expensive (which alone hurts the economy), it forces an increase in interest rates on bonds to make them more attractive to foreign investors.

The debt is fast becoming a existential problem for a government which cannot “outgrow” the problem, and rather than tighten its belt, is planning a new huge spending program for health care. Keep your eye on this as Obama spends even more in 2010.

2) Foreign Policy : By speaking softly and carrying no stick, Obama has essentially jettisoned America’s deterrence vis a vis hostile countries the world over. North Korea thumbed its nose at the US as it test fired its long range missiles, with no American response. Instead, the US was forced to station defensive surface-to-air missiles in Hawaii for its own defense.

Iran continues to build its nuclear-holocaust weapon unabated as the Jimmy Carter of our day also manages to allow a much needed insurrection opportunity following the rigged Iranian elections go wasted.

Even in less hostile waters Obama has shown himself to be a total failure as a diplomat. His much touted visit to China accomplished nothing, and his one-sided approach to the Arab-Israeli has not even yielded the limited goals he hoped for. Instead he has managed only to damage American-Israeli relations and raise Arab hopes - only to be dashed – leaving a sense of heightened frustration.

Afghanistan too, has seen a deterioration over the last 11 and a half months, despite Obama’s build up – a build up which deepens America’s commitment to a conflict that increasing numbers of American’s no longer see the benefit of.

But no, all is not lost, for Year of Obama has also given us hope for the future. Because of Obama’s failures and radical policies, American’s have made an about-face on the president, one going beyond the typical mid-term decline in ratings. A poll conducted by Rasmussen 12/24/09 gave Obama a disapproval rating of 56%, with 44% of respondents “strongly disapproving” of his administration. Compare that to his 65% approval rating with only 16% strongly disapproving when he took office January 20th. Hopefully voters will remember 2009 when they enter the voting booths in November 2010.

The second important development of 2009 was the emergence of the so-called “Tea Parties”. Its been long in coming that average Americans do what the far-left thrived off of during the Iraq War under Bush; make their opinions known. The armchair democracy of relying solely on voting to affect change isn’t enough. To maintain a healthy democracy, the people must be ready, willing, and able to make the kind of demonstrations that gain attention and remind politicians who really is in charge. This is equally true for Republican administrations and lawmakers. They too have been guilty over the last few years of ignoring their constituents. Hopefully this phenomenon will affect real change in coming year.

With or Without You: Iran's Ongoing Upheaval

AP: Witnesses: Iran police fire on protesters; 4 dead (27-12-2009)

“demonstrators fought back furiously against security forces, hurling stones at them and setting their motorcycles, cars and vans ablaze”

“In Tehran, protesters tried to cut off roads with burning barricades that filled the sky with billowing black smoke. One police officer was photographed with blood streaming down his face after he was set upon by the crowd in a blazing street.”

“he protests began with thousands of opposition supporters chanting "Death to the dictator"

These are just a few scenes of the ongoing insurrection underway in Iran. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard has been working overtime since the allegedly rigged elections of the past summer to quell the growing movement of rebellion.

Frustrated over the corruption of the present regime and its stifling adherence to Islam’s Sharia Law and facing severe economic troubles in the wake of Teheran’s vehemently anti-Western stance, hundreds of thousands of Iran’s secular young urbanites have begun to undo what their parents did 30 years ago, when Iran’s pro-Western Shah was dethroned, forced into exile, and replaced with Ayatollah Khomeni’s Islamic regime.

Like then, the United States suffers from an inept and indecisive Democratic President who fails to appreciate the urgency of the situation. In 1978 Jimmy Carter failed to provide the backing to the Shah necessary to stave off the infant revolutionary movement and the reassure middle class Iranians of the stability of the government. In so doing he allowed one of America’s principle allies in the region and a major supplier of oil to turn into one of its worst enemies.

Today Barak Obama makes the same mistake by offering little support to the growing revolution against Ahmadinejad, despite the latter’s plans for constructing nuclear arms and wiping Israel off the face of the Earth; not to mention his support of Islamic terror groups the world over. Obama made no demands of Iran vis a vis the election and continues to refuse to apply pressure, either economic or military, to Iran with regards to its nuclear program.

One can only hope that this time the pro-Western elements will win out despite the utter failure of America’s Democrat president to support them.

Regarding Healthcare

As the embattled minority party feebly tries to convince enough Democrats to oppose the Universal Healthcare plans proposed in the House and Senate, much attention has been focused to the details of the plans in order to shore up opposition. The so-called “public option,” which would offer a wholly governmental healthcare provider and thus likely kill all competition because unlike private businesses, the federal government won’t go bankrupt no matter how inefficiently it operates; subsidized abortions; broadening the ability to “buy into” Medicare and so on.

The most important issue, however, isn’t in the details of any of the plans. The real $64,000 question is, is universal federal healthcare a good idea at all? Is it within the purview of the federal government? Of course HAVING universal health care is wonderful. But PAYING for it isn’t.

Now many people have recently pointed to Israel as an example of a quality universal healthcare system. First, its important to note that Israel doesn’t have a public option. More important however, is the cost. Israelis pay enormous taxes, with one of the biggest burdens being the healthcare system. Income taxes on someone who earns a mere $23,000 a year are 49%. Compare that to the 15% a person earning that same wage would pay in America (and let’s not forget the deductions and tax credits that reduce low income earners tax burden even further). Even Israel’s Social Security tax (called National Insurance) is higher, with a total rate of 15% compared to 12.4% in America (or 13.8% if Medicare Tax is included). In addition, Israelis pay 16% nation-wide sales tax, a special tax on cars of nearly 100% (thus doubling the price of cars); not to mention the luxury taxes and tariffs that raise prices on other items. Recent studies estimate that the average Israeli loses half of his money to taxes, an astounding considering the relatively high level of poverty in Israel.

Considering America’s already massive deficit and $13 trillion debt (which is equal to the annual US GDP), is adding another massive expense really such a great idea? Will the new healthcare system have provisions to prevent the millions of illegal immigrants from exploiting it and burdening tax payers? Considering the abuse of the present system in states like California, where illegals benefit from free state provided care at the expense of the tax payer, I doubt the federal system will be much better. But hey, it’s your money.

Morally vs Ideologically Bankrupt

Since Netanyahu’s election as Prime Minister in February of 2009, Obama and his cronies have delivered a constant pressure upon Israel to agree to a total freeze on construction of settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. Netanyahu, always the spineless one tried to compromise on the issue: a partial building freeze in the West Bank (allowing for natural growth, which was never clearly defined or explained) and the completion of projects already underway. The result was last week’s building freeze declaration, which, in theory, was to ban only those projects which were not yet begun and were not part of the 500 units approved recently for construction.


Let’s count the charges against the Netanyahu gov’t:
1) Nixing approval for new units in both the West Bank and Jerusalem even before the 10 month freeze, aggravating one of the worst housing crises in Israeli history.

2) Violating its own restrictions on the extent of the building freeze, banning even the recently approved units and even illegally confiscating (read: stealing) building equipment.

3) Proceeding with the freeze despite the fact that it will cost the economy an estimated 500 million dollars, further deteriorate the already difficult housing situation, and get in return absolutely nothing.


Netanyahu spinelessly uses the freeze – and the damage it does to Israel, especially to struggling young families – so he can feel more at ease talking to Obama. But the settlement movement is just as bankrupt as Netanyahu. Since the founding of Gush Emunim, the core of the settlement movement, in 1974 the settlers and their allies inside the Green Line have been unable to formulate a comprehensive plan which would ensure the survival of their enterprise. Their answer to every problem or crisis is to build more; more houses and more settlements. When the demographic threat to the State of Israel crystallized in the 1980s they offered no solution (like some form of population transfer to encourage Arab emigration), and so eventually were subjected to the disastrous Oslo process in the 1990’s and the 2005 Gaza Disengagement. The mainstream settlement movement and the Israeli government are two heads of the same bankrupt coin: one morally lacking, the other, ideologically.