The Obama Doctrine

20 Comments / 20 Comments

1. are you still going to insult the smartest president the USA has had since Eisenhower?

   Yes. Reagan was crazy to let Jane Wyman get away.

2. @ ebyjeeby:

   bababa and you must live in the USA. Are you of age to join the army and go to fight? Isn’t that what you want Obama to do for Iraq and Iran, and now Yeman?

   If you have a child that is of military age, I suppose you want them to be in the military, but far far far away from the trouble. Well, you can’t have it both ways. Either the child fights, and if you are lucky, he/she comes back, or comes back intact.

   And then you could use that experience to cover the cost of his/her university education. After all,bottom line, you want the USA to join Israel to bomb and fight Iran, and of course, you are assured that Iran won’t bomb Israel.

   It is far far better to negotiate a deal, as Obama has done, then to have killing on both sides of the disagreements.
   And as I see it, Israel is safer this negotiated way.

   Why don’t you read what the world thinks of the Republicans, and the possible Donald Trump for President. The international consensus is, the average American citizen is a slave to the Corporate dictators. Corporate dictators who drive down your salary, drive up your healthcare costs, do foreclosures on homes, make education extraordinarily expensive, export jobs and then have that indexed finger of the right hand pointing upwards to Israel. Yes, Republicans, except perhaps for Cruz.

   Given there is a non-nuclear deal, no loss of American life, are you still going to insult the smartest president the USA has had since Eisenhower?

3. Procrastination, a loosing strategy. The EU and US adm are trying to further weaken IL before the US elections while the barbarians invade Europe.
   Erdo in the driving seat with BHO his buddy.

4. @ Bear Klein:
   Thw world will fight that aggressively, there’ll be tough times for Israel (that’s why i’d rather choose option 2), but at least there’ll be clarity, certainty for Israel’s defenders worldwide. Israeli jews must unite around one course of action…

5. Bear Klein Said:

   Official current position of the State of Israel is described above.

   so explain why BB has never been able to say to all those foreign govs who call Jews thieves:

   “JEWISH SETTLEMENT IS YS IS LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE”

   Remember, he also commissioned Levy…. then shelved it.
   If only you would spend your energy trying to get BB to do his duty to those who voted him in.

6. Bear Klein Said:

   Since the 1920s the Jewish – Arab middle-east conflict has continued because the Arabs (now called Palestinians) do NOT accept the presence of Jews in the area.

   Trump said it in one sentence:
   “Its probably impossible to make peace because one side [guess who?] teaches their children hatred”

   Once you know that and peace is impossible then you either give part of your home to the jew killers hoping they wont kill you or you transfer them out of Israel. Trump is the sort of simple person who understands that you cannot reward terrorists by giving them your land. Very few leaders in Israel have come to that conclusion in spite of the fact that they have so much knowledge about the issues. Trump knows its because of Islam which he already recognizes is a problem worth banning.

7. Bear Klein Said:

   OFFICIAL ISRAELI POLICY on its WEBSITE

   LOL,, hilarious…. buried on a website where no one looks.
   A PM of seven years needs action not words which he contradicts with his actions. If that website were meaningful we would have seen Levy implemented. The only place where words would be manaingful is in his public speeches, his meetings with leaders, his FM dealings with diplomats, his communications with the UN…
   the only place that words would have effect he never says those words, here they are, surprise, surprise:

   “JEWISH SETTLEMENT IN YS IS LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE”

   Gosh, so interesting that where words actually have effect he NEVER, NEVER NEVER in all the seven years has said those words.

   You spend your time defending his despicable behavior instead you should be contacting him and demanding that he says these few taboo, iconoclastic, incredible, unbeleivable, forbidden… words…… guess what they are, so simple, just rolling off the tongue…. those words will not damage your heroe’s larynx…
   are you satisfied with the website, is that enough for you from your PM? Why do you daily wail for annexation, transfer, sovereignty when your PM whom you defend cant even get close to any of those goals because your government does not beleive this:

   “JEWISH SETTLEMENT IN YS IS LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE”

   Call up BB, ask him to say the words, call up Bennett and ask him to corner BB on the words…. and then you can demand action.

8. Since the 1920s the Jewish – Arab middle-east conflict has continued because the Arabs (now called Palestinians) do NOT accept the presence of Jews in the area. Before the state of Israel was recreated in 1948 the Arabs were killing Jews and inciting via falsehoods that the Jews are planning to destroy or defile the Mosque on The Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In 1929 the Palestinian Riots occurred for these same lies. This resulted in 100s of dead Jews including 68 in Hebron. The Arabs drove the Jews out of Hebron. Jews had lived in Hebron for 100s of years (at least). They killed Jews all over what was then called Palestine.

   Rather than accept a Jewish State and a Palestinian Arab State as proposed by the UN in the late 1940s the Arabs tried to drive the Jews into the Sea. They killed 1% of the Jewish population but lost the war. Since then the Jewish population has risen from 600,000 to about 7 million. The Jewish State of Israel is growing population wise, and economically. The state is highly advanced in technology, medical science and water resources.

   Yet the Palestinians still refuse to accept the reality of the Jewish State and constantly are finding ways to kill Jews and try and drive them out.

   Israel has two rational choices to the conflict. No one is not a two state solution for two people as the Palestinians do not accept the permanence of the Jews.

   One is try and minimize damage caused by the Palestinians and keep fighting with one hand tied behind its back when the Palestinians try their various forms of attack periodically as advocated by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ya’alon.

   The second option is drive out forcibly all terrorists and their supporters. Allow Arabs who demonstrate loyalty (such as the Druze and many Bedouin) to keep enjoying full civil rights. Palestinian polls say 78% of the population of East Jerusalem, Gaza and Judah/Samaria (West Bank) would like to emigrate to the west. Assistance (including financial) to these people should be extended to fulfill their desire to emigrate. This would allow for actual peace between Israel and the remaining Arabs.

9. @ 1DavidKA:
   OFFICIAL ISRAELI POLICY on its WEBSITE Below. Now the world agrees and will go along with Israel? Glad to hear that. The EU and Obama now agree? I am for annexing Area C. The world will go along with that no questions asked? Good to hear! No more issues!

   Israeli Settlements and International Law
   30 Nov 2015
   Attempts to present Jewish settlement in West Bank territory (ancient Judea and Samaria) as illegal and “colonial” in nature ignores the complexity of this issue, the history of the land, and the unique legal circumstances of this case.
   The Historical Context

   Jewish settlement in the territory of ancient Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is often presented as merely a modern phenomenon. In fact, Jewish presence in this territory has existed for thousands of years and was recognized as legitimate in the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations in 1922, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state in the Jewish people’s ancient homeland.

   After recognizing “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and “the grounds for reconstituting their national home”, the Mandate specifically stipulated in Article 6 as follows:

   “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use”.

   Some Jewish settlements, such as in Hebron, existed throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule, while settlements such as Neve Ya’acov, north of Jerusalem, the Gush Etzion bloc in southern Judea, and the communities north of the Dead Sea, were established under British Mandatory administration prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, and in accordance with the League of Nations Mandate.

   Many contemporary Israeli settlements have actually been re-established on sites which were home to Jewish communities in previous generations, in an expression of the Jewish people’s deep historic and abiding connection with this land – the cradle of Jewish civilization and the locus of the key events of the Hebrew Bible. A significant number are located in places where previous Jewish communities were forcibly ousted by Arab armies or militia, or slaughtered, as was the case with the ancient Jewish community of Hebron in 1929.

   For more than a thousand years, the only administration which has prohibited Jewish settlement in these areas was the Jordanian occupation administration, which during the nineteen years of its rule (1948-1967) declared the sale of land to Jews a capital offense. The right of Jews to establish homes in these areas, and the private legal titles to the land which had been acquired, could not be legally invalidated by Jordanian occupation – which resulted from their illegal armed invasion of Israel in 1948 and was never recognized internationally as legitimate – and such rights and titles remain valid to this day.

   In short, the attempt to portray Jewish communities in the West Bank as a new form of “colonial” settlement in the land of a foreign sovereign is as disingenuous as it is politically motivated. At no point in history were Jerusalem and the West Bank subject to Palestinian Arab sovereignty. At issue is the right of Jews to reside in their ancient homeland, alongside Palestinian Arab communities, in an expression of the connection of both peoples to this land.

   International Humanitarian Law in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

   International Humanitarian Law (IHL) or the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) prohibits the transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied as a result of the resort to armed force. This principle, which is reflected in Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), was drafted immediately following the Second World War and as a response to specific events that occurred during that war.

   As the International Red Cross’ authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, including endangering its separate existence as a race, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war. Quite apart from the question of whether the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure to territory such as the West Bank over which there was no previous legitimate sovereign, the case of Jews voluntarily establishing homes and communities in their ancient homeland, and alongside Palestinian communities, does not match the kind of forced population transfers contemplated by Article 49(6).

   As Professor Eugene Rostow, former US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs has written: “the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there” (AJIL, 1990, vol. 84, p.72). The provisions of Article 49(6) regarding forced population transfer to occupied sovereign territory should not be seen as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been forcibly ousted. Nor does it prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership.

   In this regard, it should be noted that Israeli settlements in the West Bank have been established only after an exhaustive investigation process, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel, and subject to appeal, which is designed to ensure that no communities are established illegally on private land.

   Just as the settlements do not violate the terms of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, they do not constitute a “grave breach” of the Fourth Geneva Convention or “war crimes”, as some claim. In fact, even according to the view that these settlements are inconsistent with Article 49(6), the notion that such violations constitute a “grave breach” or a “war crime” was introduced (as a result of political pressure by Arab States) only in the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, to which leading States including Israel are not party and which, in this respect, does not reflect customary international law.

   In legal terms, the West Bank is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations – and indeed both the Israeli and Palestinian sides have committed to this principle. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on the historic Jewish connection to, and long-time residence in this land, its designation as part of the Jewish state under the League of Nations Mandate, and Israel’s legally acknowledged right to secure boundaries, but also on the fact that the territory was not previously under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain claims to this area. It is for this reason that the two sides have expressly agreed to resolve all outstanding issues, including the future of the settlements, in direct bilateral negotiations to which Israel remains committed.

   Israeli-Palestinian Agreements

   The bilateral agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians, and which govern their relations, contain no prohibition on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, it is specifically provided that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, reflecting the understanding of both sides that this issue can only be resolved alongside other permanent status issues, such as borders and security. Indeed, the parties expressly agreed – in the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement of 1995 – that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements or Israelis and that the settlements are subject to exclusive Israeli jurisdiction pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.

   It has been charged that the prohibition, contained in the Interim Agreement (Article 31(7), against unilateral steps which alter the “status” of the West Bank and Gaza Strip implies a ban on settlement activity. This position is unfounded. This prohibition was agreed upon in order to prevent either side from taking steps which purport to change the legal status of this territory (such as by annexation or unilateral declaration of statehood), pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. Were this prohibition to be applied to building – and given that the provision is drafted to apply equally to both sides – it would lead to the dubious interpretation that neither side is permitted to build homes to accommodate for the needs of their respective communities until permanent status negotiations are successfully concluded.

   In this regard, Israel’s decision to dismantle all settlements from the Gaza Strip and some in the Northern West Bank in the context of the 2005 Disengagement Plan were unilateral Israeli measures rather than the fulfilment of a legal obligation.

   Conclusions

   Attempts to present Jewish settlement in ancient Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as illegal and “colonial” in nature ignores the complexity of this issue, the history of the land, and the unique legal circumstances of this case.

   Jewish communities in this territory have existed from time immemorial and express the deep connection of the Jewish people to land which is the cradle of their civilization, as affirmed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and from which they, or their ancestors, were ousted.
   The prohibition against the forcible transfer of civilians to territory of an occupied state under the Fourth Geneva Convention was not intended to relate to the circumstances of voluntary Jewish settlement in the West Bank on legitimately acquired land which did not belong to a previous lawful sovereign and which was designated as part of the Jewish State under the League of Nations Mandate.
   Bilateral Israeli-Palestinian Agreements specifically affirm that settlements are subject to agreed and exclusive Israeli jurisdiction pending the outcome of peace negotiations, and do not prohibit settlement activity.
   Israel remains committed to peace negotiations without preconditions in order to resolve all outstanding issues and competing claims. It continues to ask the Palestinian side to respond in kind. It is hoped that such negotiations will produce an agreed secure and peaceful settlement which will give legitimate expression to the connection of both Jews and Palestinians to this ancient land.

10. @ bernard ross:
    “the GOI and the people of Israel need to sort out their goals becuase the world is only reflecting the will of the people of israel as expressed by their elected gov.”

    Can’t agree more! The status quo of ambiguity, contradiction, and confusion is not sustainable. It weakens the Israel defenders significantly. Either make sure the world knows that Y&S is part of Israel and all of MO in foreign relations and domestic policy are based on that premise; or accept what the world basically sees as a fact today — that the WB, along with Gaza, is a land given to Pals for their own state — and remove all settlements beyond the green line or at least those outside the blocs, and do land swaps for the blocs.

11. The construction and establishment of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is legal under both Israeli and international law, as well as justified on historical and ethical grounds, according to a new document drafted by the Foreign Ministry.

    The document, presented in a Channel 2 report Thursday, was issued under the directive of Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely and distributed to Israeli diplomats across the globe. It states that Israel has “valid property claims” to West Bank territory, as “Jewish affinity” with the region and in cities such as Hebron is thousands of years old.

    According to the document, “These are not new communities, and not ‘colonization,’” and therefore, the “section of the Geneva Convention which prohibits the transfer of a population to occupied lands does not apply” in the case of the West Bank. “Never at any point of time in history were Jerusalem or the West Bank under Palestinian Arab sovereignty,” according to the document.

    The document notes that Jewish communities beyond the Green Line “were established in a judicial proceeding under the supervision of [Israel’s] Supreme Court.” It further argues that Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005 was a “unilateral political decision,” and does not exhibit a “realization of any sort of legal obligation.”

    Official current position of the State of Israel is described above.

12. Israpundit is boring? You must mean, lsatenstein, that nobody here agrees with you. Sometimes I wonder what planet you’re living on. I’m reminded of something Reagan said: “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”

13. This ispundant is so boring.

    Not as long as you are here, Izzy. You are very special:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1GC6yXZ4e4

14. @ babushka:
    Once again Bababa blacksheep, you are to be commended for your lack of contents and quality of insults.

    You remind me of Shakespeares man

    Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    If you have facts to backup your comments, then present them. Insults are just facts about you, the messenger.

    This ispundant is so boring. It has one good posting a week, and the rest of the time is regurgitation of the same old same old.

15. The Obama Doctrine

    actually its the Soros doctrine… president hussein has no doctrines other than being a puppet and visiting the bath house. the establishment has decided that its best to have a pres who is simply a mouthpiece who is told what to say by those “advisors” who are actually just a link to the puppeteers… both parties have them…cheney was the Bush link. In such a scenario they decided that the less they know the better, and the more corrupt they are the more easily they are manipulated. They know that paradigm is out the window with Trump… like with the kennedy’s… perhaps they will give him the same fate?

16. @ Bear Klein:
    its interesting, that with so many opportunities that Bibi NEVER said:
    “Jewish settlement in YS is legal and legitimate”
    according to BB the only issue is security, not the Jewish homeland.
    Therefore, foreigners rightly ask: if its only security then solve that issue and get out of the palestinian homeland.
    BB has morphed Israel and the Jews into being land thieves using security as an excuse to occupy the palestinian homeland.
    the GOI and the people of Israel need to sort out their goals becuase the world is only reflecting the will of the people of israel as expressed by their elected gov.
    How about writing the long list of everything BB has done to obstruct all your goals of annexation, sovereignty, etc etc… why always point elsewhere when there is nothing that occurs outside which is not first mouthed in Israel.. including apartheid, child killing, land theiving, etc… paid israeli whore foreign moles daily feed the foreigners lies. Livni and Herzog have elected themselves into gov and are now conducting foreign policy diplomacy with the anti semitic swedish FM.

17. timeline of Obama’s Hatred of Israel

    On Thursday, the press announced that the Obama administration would fully consider abandoning Israel in international bodies like the United Nations.

    According to reports, President Obama finally called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to congratulate him – but the “congratulations” was actually a lecture directed at forcing Netanyahu to surrender to the terrorist Palestinian regime.

    For some odd reason, many in the media and Congress reacted with surprise to Obama’s supposedly sudden turn on Israel. The media, in an attempt to defend Obama’s radicalism, pretend that Netanyahu’s comments in the late stages of his campaign prompted Obama’s anti-Israel action.

    But, in truth, this is the culmination of a longtime Obama policy of destroying the US-Israel relationship; Obama has spent his entire life surrounded by haters of Israel, from former Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman Rashid Khalidi to former Jimmy Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, pro-Hamas negotiator Robert Malley to UN Ambassador Samantha Power (who once suggested using American troops to guard Palestinians from Israelis), Jeremiah Wright (who said “Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me”) to Professor Derrick Bell (“Jewish neoconservative racists…are undermining blacks in every way they can”). Here is a concise timeline, with credit to Dan Senor and the editors of Commentary:

    February 2008: Obama says while campaigning, ‘There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel.” At the time, as Dan Senor pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, Israel was run by the Kadima government run by Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and Shimon Peres, and was attempting desperately to bring the Palestinians to the table. Instead, the Palestinians launch war, as always.

    June 2008: Obama tells the American Israel Public Affairs Conference that Jerusalem ought to remain undivided, attempting to woo Jewish votes. He then walks that back the next day, saying only that the capital shouldn’t be divided by barbed wire.

    March 2009: The Obama administration reverses the Bush era policy of not joining the United Nations Human Rights Council. Secretary of State Clinton said, “Human rights are an essential element of American global foreign policy,” completely neglecting the UNHRC’s abysmally anti-Semitic record. The Washington Post reported that the administration joined the Human Rights Council even though they conceded that it “has devoted excessive attention to alleged abuses by Israel and too little to abuses in places such as Darfur, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.”

    May 2009: Obama tells Netanyahu that “settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.” Netanyahu announces a settlement freeze to comply. The Palestinians refuse to negotiate. Obama then slams Israel: “they still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures.”

    June 2009: Obama tells the world in his infamous Cairo speech that Israel was only created based on Jewish suffering in the Holocaust. He then says that Palestinians have been similarly victimized by the Jews: “They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

    July 2009: Obama threatens to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel. He tells Jewish leaders, “Look at the past eight years. During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that?” Except for Israel forcibly removing thousands of Jews from the Gaza Strip, the election of Hamas, and the launch of war by the Palestinians and Hezbollah, nothing happened. Obama then lectures the Jews about the need for Israeli “self-reflection.” The same month, Obama tells CNN that the United States would “absolutely not” give Israel permission to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    September 2009: Obama tells the United Nations that “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” Obama’s definition of Israeli settlements, as the world soon learned, included building bathrooms in a home already owned by Jews in East Jerusalem. Obama offers no serious criticism of the Palestinians.

    March 2010: Obama follows up on his threatening language about settlements by deploying Vice President Joe Biden to Israel, where Biden rips into the Israelis for building bathrooms in Jerusalem, the eternal Jewish capital. Hillary Clinton then yells at Netanyahu for nearly an hour on the phone, telling him he had “harmed the bilateral relationship.” David Axelrod calls the building plans an “insult” to the United States. When Netanyahu visits the White House a week and a half later, Obama makes him leave via a side door.

    April 2010: Obama refuses to prevent the Washington summit on nuclear proliferation from becoming an Arab referendum on the evils of Israel’s nukes.

    June 2010: An anonymous “US defense source” leaks to the Times of London that Israel had cut a deal with the Saudis to use their airspace to strike Iran. The deal is scuttled.

    May 2011: The State Department labeled Jerusalem not a part of Israel. The same month, Obama demanded that Israel make concessions to the Palestinians based on the pre-1967 borders, which Israelis call the “Auschwitz borders” thanks to their indefensibility.

    November 2011: Obama and French president Nicolas Sarkozy are caught on open mic ripping Netanyahu, with Sarkozy stating, “I can’t stand him, he’s a liar,” and Obama replying, “You’re tired of him? What about me? I have to deal with him every day.”

    December 2011: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rips into the State of Israel, stating that it is moving in the “opposite direction” of democracy. She said that Israel reminded her of Rosa Parks, and that religious people not listening to women sing – a millennia-long policy among some segments of the Orthodox – reminds her of extremist regimes, adding that it seemed “more suited to Iran than Israel.“

    February 2012: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tells David Ignatius at the Washington Post that the possibility he worried about most was that Israel would strike Iran. The Post then adds, “Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb.” The goal: to delay any potential Israeli strike.

    March 2012: NBC News somehow gains information from “senior Obama administration officials” that Israel had financed and trained the Iranian opposition group Mujahideen-e-Khalq, and adds that the Obama administration had nothing to do with hits on Iranian nuclear scientists. More daylight. More leaks. The same month, Foreign Policy receives information from “four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers” that the “United States has recently been granted access to Iran’s northern border.” Foreign Policy also reports that a “senior administration official” has told them, “The Israelis have bought an airfield, and the airfield is Azerbaijan.” Again, a potential Israeli strike is scuttled. The same day as the Foreign Policy report, Bloomberg reports a Congressional Research Service report stating that Israel can’t stop Iran’s nuclear program in any case. Columnist Ron Ben-Yishai of Yidioth Ahronoth writes that the Obama administration wants to “erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties.”

    June 2012: In an attempt to shore up the Jewish vote, top members of the Obama administration, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and then-CIA director Leon Panetta were quoted by David Sanger of The New York Times talking about the President’s supposedly deep involvement in the Stuxnet plan to take out Iran’s nuclear reactors via computer virus. Until that point, it had been suspected but not confirmed that Stuxnet was an Israeli project. The Obama administration denied leaking the information. A year later, the State Department released emails showing that Sanger had corresponded regularly with all the top Obama officials, including correspondence on Stuxnet.

    December 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at the Saban Forum on US-Israel Relations, where she says that Israelis have a “lack of empathy” for Palestinians, and that the Israelis need to “demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their minds.”

    March 2013: Obama forces Netanyahu to call Islamist Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to apologize for Israel’s actions to stop a terrorist-arming flotilla from entering the Gaza Strip to aid Hamas. Erdogan had recently labeled Zionism racism.

    May 2013: Members of the Obama Pentagon leak information that Israel attacked the Damascus airport to stop a shipment of weapons to terrorist groups. Obama officials actually had to apologize for this leak, since it endangered American lives. They blamed “low-level” employees.

    June 2013: The Obama administration leaks specific information regarding Israeli Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile sites. Weeks later, US sources tell CNN that Israel attacked a Syrian installation full of Russian-provided missiles. The same month, “American intelligence analysts” tell the New York Times that Israeli strikes had not been effective. All that information was classified.

    June 2014: Three Jewish teenagers are kidnapped, including an American, and murdered by Hamas. The Obama administration immediately calls on Israel for restraint, and says it will continue to work with a Palestinian unity government including Hamas. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki says that the Obama administration wants “the Israelis and the Palestinians continue to work with one another on that, and we certainly would continue to urge that… in spite of, obviously, the tragedy and the enormous pain on the ground.” Throughout the ensuing Gaza War, in which Hamas fired rockets at Israeli civilians and tunnels were uncovered demonstrating Hamas’ intent to kidnap Israeli children, the Obama administration criticized Israel’s prosecution of the war.

    August 2014: In the middle of a shooting war, Obama stopped weapons shipment to Israel. According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama found out that Israel asked the Defense Department for shipments of Hellfire missiles. Obama personally stepped in and blocked the shipments.

    October 2014: Jeffrey Goldberg, court Jew for the Obama administration, releases an article in The Atlantic quoting Obama officials calling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “chickenshit.” Goldberg, naturally, blames Netanyahu (of course, he also wrote in 2008 that any Jew who feared Obama on Israel was an “obvious racist”).

    January 2015: Obama deploys his campaign team to defeat Netanyahu in Israel. A group titled “One Voice,” funded by American donors, pays for the Obama campaign team, led by Obama 2012 field director Jeremy Bird. The announcement comes days after Speaker of the House John Boehner’s invite to Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress. Obama quickly announced he would not meet with Netanyahu, making the excuse that the meeting would come too close to the election.

    March 2015: Netanyahu wins. Obama refuses to call him to congratulate him for two days. When he does, he threatens to remove American support in the international community, even as he moves to loosen sanctions and weapons embargoes on Iran.

    Nothing has changed. Obama is who he always was. The mask has simply been removed.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/20/a-complete-timeline-of-obamas-anti-israel-hatred/

18. Sasha and Malia Obama Wore $20K Dresses to the Canada State Dinner
    https://www.yahoo.com/style/sasha-and-malia-obama-wore-20k-dresses-to-the-170346900.html

19. At least the USA has an intelligent president anti-Semitic putz.

    Goldberg is the quintessential court Jew, a loathsome sycophant groveling before his Hebrew-hating hero.

20. A most interesting article about Obama. At least the USA has an intelligent president.

    That article will give credence to the expression “Great minds think alike, small minds seldom differ”.

    A most interesting read where the comments to the article. It shows that the USA is moving away from being a global power to being “Our world is us and we are for us. Others can look after themselves.”