Happy Belated 90th Birthday to the WORST US President…of the 20th Century! Yes, James Earl Carter, Jr. is still kickin’…and it’s time for those of us on the Right Side to leave any type of Birthday Greeting to a forerunner of who we have now.
Think of all the things he’s responsible for: The Misery Index, stagflation, high unemployment, military emasculation, the Iranian Hostage Crisis…and that’s just for starters.
Have at it!
Archive for the ‘Iran’ Category
Filed under Anti-semitism, Democratic Party, Energy, Hamas, History, Inflation, Iran, Koran, Misery Index at October 2nd, 2014 - 6:00 pm
Happy Belated 90th Birthday to the WORST US President…of the 20th Century! Yes, James Earl Carter, Jr. is still kickin’…and it’s time for those of us on the Right Side to leave any type of Birthday Greeting to a forerunner of who we have now.
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Communism, Democratic Party, Fascism, Hezballah, Iran, Iraq, Islamists, Progressives, Republican Party, Syria at October 1st, 2014 - 2:00 pm
The Progressive and Decepti-Con (alleged conservatives) media are all cheering the fallen god-king’s illegal bombing of ISIS in Syria. Obama has not asked for authorization of force and ISIS was not a threat to the US. The Jihadist/Saddam Baathist hybrid organization was only a threat to one nation Iran. Up until the Syrian revolution and the rise of ISIS, Iran through its puppet in Iraq which was installed by the US, Assad’s Syria and Hezbollah occupied Lebanon formed was called the Shiite crescent. ISIS shattered this crescent and has the Ayatollahs in Tehran quaking in their boots. In battles ranging from the Lebanese border, to eastern Syria and the gate of Baghdad, ISIS has defeated Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the Syrian army, Hezbollah and the Shia Iraqi army. No Iranian allied force can stand up to ISIS in battle, but their fortune may change.
In what has to be the stupidest military act since we bombed Serbia, the United States is now bombing the one military force standing in the way of Iranian Shiite hegemony of the Middle East. Even worse, we have coordinated with Iran these bombings to help their proxies on the ground in Iraq and Syria.
The U.S. told Iran of its plans to strike ISIS militants inside Syria in order to reassure them that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would not be targetted, a senior Iranian official has claimed.
The communication, confirmed in part by a senior U.S. State Department official, appears to signal a cooling in hostilities between the U.S. and Iran for the first time since a 1979 hostage crisis prompted Washington to sever ties with Tehran.
Iran is said to have voiced concerns for the safety of Assad, who remains the Shia Islam-dominated nation’s closest regional ally and the recipient of Iranian military support during a Syrian Civil War.
The Iranian official said Iran was informed separately in advance of the airstrikes launched by Washington and Arab allies against Islamic State positions in Syria for the first time.
BEIRUT, Lebanon — They are sworn enemies who insist they will never work together, but in practice, Hezbollah and the United States are already working — separately — on a common goal: to stop the extremist Islamic State from moving into Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful military and political player and currently shares with Washington an interest in stability.
Weeks after Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group and political party, helped repel an Islamic State attack on the town of Arsal on the Syrian border, new American weapons are flowing to help the Lebanese Army — which coordinates with Hezbollah — to secure the frontier. American intelligence shared with the army, according to Lebanese experts on Hezbollah, has helped the organization stop suicide attacks on its domain in southern Beirut.
If you think this was bad, well it gets worse. The Obama Regime, Progressive media and the Decepti-Con media all claimed that there was some terror group called Khorosan ready to strike at America. This was a total lie and the presence of some al-Qaeda operatives with Nusra Front, was an excuse to bomb another enemy of Iran. Even better, the group does not exist!
Hence, Obama gives us the Khorosan Group.The who?
There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize.
You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the Iranian–Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.
The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, “Jabhat al-Nusra.” Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this week’s U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, he’s something the administration is at pains to call “core al-Qaeda.”
Once again, the evil 2 party plutocracy has committed the blood and treasure of America to commit a stretgic mistake. All this is being done to distract Americans, while the 2 parasite parties keep feeding the Militray Industrial complex. The only people we should be assisting against ISIS are the Kurds and Assyrian Christians. It is in our interest for ISIS and Iran to keep fighting. But, the 2 headed demon that runs America is being a sucker for the Ayatollahs in Iran.
Filed under Al Qaeda, British Islamic Jihadists, Chechnya, Gaza, Hezballah, IDF, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Supremacism, Islamists, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, NIGERIA, Syria at August 4th, 2014 - 10:02 am
ISIS continues to expand its reach in the Middle East. In Iraq they seized a major dam and several villages from Kurdish forces. In Lebanon ISIS along with their rival Nusra Font have combined to seize territory in Lebanon centered around the town of Arsal. They are now clashing with the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah.
ISLAMIC State (Isis) fighters have seized control of Iraq’s biggest dam, an oilfield and three more towns after inflicting their first major defeat on Kurdish forces since sweeping through the region in June.
Capture of the Mosul Dam after an offensive of barely 24 hours could give the Sunni militants the ability to flood major Iraqi cities, sharply raising the stakes in their bid to topple Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki’s Shi’ite-led government.
sis fighters have also been involved in violent exchanges with Lebanese armed forces around a border town in a push to dislodge the biggest incursion by militants into Lebanon since Syria’s civil war began.
At least ten Lebanese soldiers have died in the fighting, which erupted after Islamist gunmen seized a local police station on Saturday in response to the arrest of their commander, security officials said.
An unknown number of militants and civilians have also been killed, and security sources say at least 16 members of Lebanon’s security forces have been taken captive.
The gunmen in Arsal include fighters linked to the Islamic State (Isis), the al Qaeda offshoot that has seized territory in Syria and Iraq, as well as Syria’s al Qaeda branch, the Nusra Front.
ISIS and its allies are now battling on multiple fronts Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Nigeria where Boko Harram has pledges allegiance and Libya. The self describe Caliphate has shattered the Iranian led Shiite crescent and are threatening Jordan. This organization is a cancer that is spreading. ISIS believes it is reliving the 7th Century Jihad.
Filed under Headlines, Iran, Iraq, Ukraine at July 4th, 2014 - 11:50 am
US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki conducts her daily briefing for reporters on June 16, 2014 at the State Department in Washington. (AFP Photo/Paul J. Richards)
Long-suffering State Dept. spokesperson Jen Psaki endured another torrid press briefing as she was forced to defend some distinctly unsavory remarks by Ukrainian politicians and struggled with the differences between Iraq and Iran, as well as oil and gas.
As usual, AP’s Matt Lee served as Psaki’s chief tormentor, bringing up last week’s protests outside the Russian embassy in Kiev, in which Ukraine’s acting Foreign Minister Andrey Deshchitsa addressed the anti-Russian mob by telling them that “Putin is a f**ker.”
“These are officials you have supported, is this the kind of language you find acceptable?” Lee asked Psaki.
Psaki insisted that Deshchitsa’s words are not relevant. Rather, what truly matters is “what the FM was doing when he made those comments,” she said.
“He’s been encouraging calm, encouraging a peaceful resolution, and I would otherwise point you to the Ukrainians on the meaning of the language used, but I think the context here of what effort he was undergoing is an incredibly important part.”
Whether Deshchitsa truly succeeded in his aims of quelling the crowd is questionable – the video shows his words being immediately picked up and turned into a football chant by the delighted mob, as the somewhat mortified diplomat looks on.
And while the Russian embassy did not get torched, one international incident was replaced with another after an official press release from Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk, in which anti-Kiev militias in eastern Ukraine were described as “sub-human” separatists.
“I think the Prime Minister behavior and his leadership has been consistently in support of a peaceful resolution,” Psaki said, refusing to answer whether she felt okay with the Ukrainian official using the Nazi-like word “subhuman” to describe the Russians.
But that’s not all…
Filed under Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Islamists at July 1st, 2014 - 12:00 pm
Guest Blogger: Doriangrey
Our so called leaders are bat shit insane. The hatred and killing, the “Conflict” in the Middle East has been going on for over 2000 years. We are not going to be the ones to solve it, unless we just admit that the Arabs are homicidal maniacs, pure 100 percent sociopaths and the only solution to their madness is to kill them all before they kill us.
Those who insist that somehow we can reason with the Arabs are deluding themselves and placing all of the rest of us at grave risk of being killed by psychopaths. You do not reason with Ted Bundy, you do not reason with John Wayne Gacy or Jeffery Dahmer, the sooner we accept that 99% of the Muslims in the Middle East are every bit the homicidal psychopaths that Bundy, Gacy or Dahmer were the sooner we can take reasonable actions. In the case of the middle east, reasonable actions would be turning Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan into giant puddles of molten green glass.
The options here, are to embrace insanity and deceive ourselves into thinking that we can fix something that has been going on for over 2000 years. A decision by the way that leads to an untold number of innocent lives being lost in repeated 9/11 events. Or accepting reality and putting an end to Arab Islamic homicidal psychopathic threats to the entire rest of the world.
I know, I know… I must be pure evil for thinking that it’s ok to murder tens of millions of innocent Arab Muslims. To which I respond.. Fucking spare me… Every since Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to the shores of Tripoli the Muslims have been threatening to kill everyone who refuses to convert to Islam. Hell they have been not only threatening, but have been doing exactly that since 700 AD when Mohammad commanded them to do exactly that.
Albert Einstein once famously defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again always expecting a different result. Islam is not going to suddenly come to it’s senses and become a peaceful religion. If we do not accept reality and admit that Arab Islam is a sociopath religion that cannot be redeemed then Arab Islam is going to continue murdering everyone who refuses to convert to Islam. We will be responsible for every one of those innocent deaths because we had the ability to put an end to Arab Islamic insanity and were too cowardly to do so.
There is a solution to the homicidal insanity that is Arab Islam.
Filed under Al Qaeda, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Supremacism, Islamists, Syria at June 29th, 2014 - 12:56 pm
The Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham has finally done what Jihadi groups have been fantasizing over. They have declared the restoration of the Caliphate with al-Baghdadi as the Caliph. They are calling on all Muslims to pledge loyalty to the Caliphate.
Things are getting interesting.
Filed under Al Qaeda, Entertainment, Fascism, Hipsters, Iran, Iraq, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Progressives, Syria at June 26th, 2014 - 7:00 am
The Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham has become a revolutionary symbol to many in the Hipster movement. This Islamic Imperialist organization is viewed by some Hipsters as a revolutionary organization fighting against “Global Capitalist Oppression.” A manifestation of the mainstreaming of ISIS with the Avant-garde crowd is Hipster comedian Russell Brand.
The British comedian who is popular with the Hipster set defends ISIS and blames their rise on the US. Russell Brand then calls Fox News a terrorist organization. He launches a very vile attack on Justice Jeanine Pirro with sexual taunts.
Do not laugh at Russell Brand’s defense of ISIS and anti-Fox rant. He is a player in the popular culture and his opinion helps form the opinions of many especially in the Hipster set. Brand is a dangerous man who is participating in the softening of the image of ISIS.
Here is Russel Brand’s tour poster.
Brand views himself as a leader of some cultural movement. I would not be shock to see Brand in a few months wear ISIS t-shirts to promote them as a cool and hip organization. Russell Brand is the face of evil and not someone to take likely.
Filed under Al Qaeda, Iran, Iraq, Islamists, Libertarianism, Republican Party, Special Report at June 20th, 2014 - 8:14 am
As evil ISIS is, let us not lose sight at how evil Iran and their Iraqi Shiite lackeys are. It was Iran’s puppet PM of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki who instigated this sectarian war by promoting Shiite supremacy. While most Republican politicians are salivating for another nation building exercise, Rand Paul once again takes a brave stand against the Jacobin/Trotskyite mindset that has infected the Right when it comes to foreign policy.
Though many claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan on foreign policy, too few look at how he really conducted it. The Iraq war is one of the best examples of where we went wrong because we ignored that.
In 1984, Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger developed the following criteria for war, primarily to avoid another Vietnam. His speech, “The Uses of Military Power,” boils down to this: The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the U.S. or its allies are involved and only “with the clear intention of winning.” U.S. combat troops should be committed only with “clearly defined political and military objectives” and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives and with a “reasonable assurance” of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress and only “as a last resort.”
Much of the rationale for going to war in 2003 did not measure up to the Weinberger Doctrine, and I opposed the Iraq war. I thought we needed to be more prudent about the weightiest decision a country can make. Like Reagan, I thought we should never be eager to go to war. And now, 11 years later, we are still dealing with the consequences.
Let me address both of these. First, we should not put any U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq, unless it is to secure or evacuate U.S. personnel and diplomatic facilities. And while we may not completely rule out airstrikes, there are many questions that need to be addressed first.
What would airstrikes accomplish? We know that Iran is aiding the Iraqi government against ISIS. Do we want to, in effect, become Iran’s air force? What’s in this for Iran? Why should we choose a side, and if we do, who are we really helping?
Saying the mess in Iraq is President Obama’s fault ignores what President Bush did wrong. Saying it is President Bush’s fault is to ignore all the horrible foreign policy decisions in Syria, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere under President Obama, many of which may have contributed to the current crisis in Iraq. For former Bush officials to blame President Obama or for Democrats to blame President Bush only serves as a reminder that both sides continue to get foreign policy wrong. We need a new approach, one that emulates Reagan’s policies, puts America first, seeks peace, faces war reluctantly, and when necessary acts fully and decisively.
Thank God Rand Paul is trying to resurrect the GOP’s traditional foreign policy stance that has been hijacked by a Jacobin/Trotskyite cabal. Both ISIS and Iran/Iraqi Shiites are enemies of the US. It is in our interest for both sides to continue killing each other. No Islamic nation is worth the blood of Americans.
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, China, Iran, Israel, Japan, Libya, Libya, Russia, South Korea, Syria, Ukraine at May 6th, 2014 - 7:00 am
It seems as if Obama is an even worse foreign policy president than he is on domestic issues. Our friends and allies need to wait him out.
by Caroline Glick
For most commentators, President Barack Obama’s biggest achievement in his four-nation tour of Asia was the enhanced defense treaty he signed with Philippine President Benigno Aquino. The pact permits US forces to operate on Philippine military bases and sets the conditions for joint training of US and Philippine forces, among other things.
There are two problems with the treaty, however.
And they reflect the basic problem with US foreign policy generally, five-and-a-half years into the Obama presidency.
First, there is the reason that the treaty became necessary.
The Philippines has been under attack by China since 2012 when China seized the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines. Despite its mutual defense treaty with Manila, Washington did nothing.
This non-response emboldened China still further.
And today China is threatening the Second Thomas Shoal, another Philippine possession.
So, too, late last year China extended its Air Defense Identification Zone to include Japanese and South Korean airspace. The US responded to the aggressive move by recommending that its allies comply with China’s dictates.
The administration’s top priority in all these cases, as well as in the case of Beijing’s challenge to Japan’s control over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, has been to avoid conflicts with China.
But American timidity and refusal to abide by US treaty obligations to the Philippines and Japan have had the opposite effect.
By not responding to Chinese aggression, far from moderating China’s behavior, the Obama administration emboldened it. And in so doing, it destroyed the US’s deterrent posture in Asia. As China’s increasingly belligerent behavior has made clear, Obama’s attempt to appease China was perceived in Beijing as a green light for further aggression, because the Chinese correctly determined that Obama would never make them pay a price for seizing territory and otherwise harming America’s Asian allies.
Under these circumstances, Obama had no choice but to sign an enhanced defense treaty with the Philippines.
Far from calming the situation, though, the treaty increases the chance of war between China and its neighbors. No one, least of all China’s leadership, is fooled by Obama’s whiny insistence that the defense pact isn’t directed against China. And now China, already itching for more confrontations, will feel compelled to respond strongly.
This brings us to the second problem with the Obama administration’s new assertiveness in Asia. It simply isn’t credible.
We already know Obama lacks the will to confront China. And his decision to downsize the US military ensures the US will lack good options for confronting it in the coming years.
During his joint press conference in Manila on Monday with Aquino, Ed Henry from Fox News asked Obama to explain his foreign policy doctrine.
“What do you think the Obama Doctrine is in terms of what your guiding principle is on all of these crises and how you answer those critics who say they think the doctrine is weakness.”
Obama responded with his signature peevishness.
Before launching into a 900-word assault on a series of straw men to whom he attributed positions that at best distorted and at worst willfully misrepresented the positions of his critics, Obama muttered, “Well, Ed, I doubt that I’m going to have time to lay out my entire foreign policy doctrine.”
One thing that Obama did have the time do was signal to the Philippines that the US is no longer a reliable ally. After touting the new defense pact in one sentence, Obama proceeded to explain in the next that his administration cannot be expected to honor any commitment to defend the Philippines militarily.
Obama’s bloviations demonstrated why Henry’s question was so important.
For five-and-a-half years, Obama has not given a straightforward presentation of his foreign policy.
Instead, he has tailored his foreign policy statements to what he thinks the public wishes to hear.
So for instance, in responding to Henry, Obama sounded an isolationist note, attacking imaginary critics for their automatic rush to arms in all circumstances.
Beyond being a gross mischaracterization of his critics, Obama’s remarks ignored the inconvenient fact that he sent US forces on a NATO mission to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya without congressional authorization.
No Republicans forced his hand. Since 2004, Gaddafi had posed no threat to US interests.
And in the aftermath of Obama’s unauthorized war in Libya, the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi.
Al-Qaida and other jihadist groups that benefited from NATO’s operation have taken over large swathes of the country and sunk it into ungovernable chaos. [……..]
Although Obama’s 900-word rant obscured rather than explained his foreign policy doctrine, the Obama Doctrine is easily understood from his actual policies – including his military adventure in Libya.
If Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy doctrine was “Peace through strength,” Obama’s doctrine can be summed up in two sentences: “Speak loudly and carry no stick.” And “Be good to your enemies and bad to your allies.”
The defense treaty with the Philippines, like Obama’s bluster in Ukraine and Syria, is a sterling example of the first part of his doctrine.
And Obama’s obsequious policies toward China, Russia and Iran on the one hand, and his coldness toward Japan, South Korea, Poland, the Czech Republic, Ukraine and Israel on the other hand demonstrate the validity of the second part of his doctrine.
The reason that Obama has not shared his own doctrine with the American people is not because he can’t explain it in the course of one speech. It is because he knows that they won’t accept it.
For their part, the American people seem to have him figured out. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll published on Wednesday, Obama’s approval rating for his handling of foreign policy is at an all-time low. Only 38 percent of Americans approve of his handling of foreign policy and 53% disapprove.
The same poll gave respondents two foreign policy doctrines and asked them to choose the one they preferred.
The first was, “We need a president who will present an image of America that has a more open approach and is willing to negotiate with friend and foe alike.”
The second was, “We need a president who will present an image of strength that shows America’s willingness to confront our enemies and stand up for our principles.”
Thirty-nine percent preferred the first policy course and 55% the second one. These numbers are nearly identical to the approval numbers for Obama’s foreign policy.
For America’s allies this reality requires them to carve out their own courses the best they can.
In Israel’s case, this involves first and foremost taking a less idealistic and more mercenary view of the world. This means not shrinking away from opportunities with the likes of Russia and China when they arise. And certainly it means not automatically siding with the Obama administration against them.
The Obama administration is reportedly angry with Israel for refusing to join America in scolding Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. But it is far from clear that the Obama White House offers Jerusalem a better option. To date, Obama has repaid Israel for its willingness to toe his line by undermining its core interests, publicly attacking it and seeking to subvert the elected government.
Israel has no interest in getting on Russia’s bad side in order to placate the Obama administration.
Nor is there any reason for Israel to obey the Obama administration’s demands for belligerent rhetoric when the next step of the Obama White House would doubtless be to turn around and castigate the “Israel lobby” for allegedly pushing the US toward war.
The same goes for China. There is no reason for Israel to jump into conflict with the growing Asian power. While Secretary of State John Kerry is egging on the Europeans to expand their trade war against Israel, China is assiduously expanding its trade with Israel. According to the Economy Ministry, next year Asia will surpass the US as Israel’s largest trading partner.
Then, of course, there is Iran. Out of loyalty and basic trust in the US’s strategic sanity, for the past decade, Israel has been willing to play second fiddle to the US in contending with Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program. […….]
Since his first days in office, Obama has signaled clearly through his deeds that he had absolutely no interest in blocking Iran’s nuclear progress. On the contrary, Obama’s policies in the Middle East have consistently involved strengthening and legitimizing the Iranian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of Israel and the less radical Sunni Arab states.
Out of habit, and in the hopes that something would change, Israel pretended away this reality and continued to follow Washington’s lead, limiting its goals to covert operations against Iran – that Obama leaked to the media – and lobbying Congress for sanctions that never had any chance of blocking Iran’s race to the nuclear finishing line.
And so Israel must ignore it. Every day that Israel does not set back Iran’s nuclear progress brings Israel closer to being the subject of nuclear blackmail, Iranian-backed terrorism, and even nuclear Armageddon.
Obama may hide his doctrine behind petulance, populist canards and straw men, but it is clear enough. And that means that as far as Israel is concerned, its goal of securing its survival and prosperity for at least the next two-and-a-half years requires Jerusalem to act on its own and in the face of White House opposition.
It isn’t pleasant to defy the American president.
It isn’t easy. But in light of the Obama Doctrine, defying the White House is required to preserve the freedom of the Jewish people.
Read the rest - Life under the Obama doctrine
Filed under Barack Obama, Chechnya, Headlines, Iran, Israel, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Russia, Ukraine at April 28th, 2014 - 7:13 pm
Israel should keep out of it!
The source of the article is Haaretz, a left-wing paper in Israel that tries to play up “crises” with the US in order to undermine Netanyahu.
So its credibility in this case is weak.
Still Israel is probably not too enthusiastic about jumping in on the conflict, considering that Kerry just blamed Israel for the collapse of peace talk, the history of the Holocaust and its general lack of escalating foreign geopolitical conflicts. Or to put it another way, Israel isn’t a world power and isn’t trying to be one.
In this respect, the present dilemma is reminiscent of the last, at the end of the 1990s, when Washington naturally expected support from client states like Israel for its anti-Serbian Balkans policy – and found the Israeli foreign minister, Ariel Sharon, much less than enthusiastic. This happened despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated urgings that Israel broadcast its support for its patron.
Considering that Clinton was working to overthrow Netanyahu, and eventually succeeded, a lack of enthusiasm was not surprising. Sharon was somewhat blunter about it.
You can’t expect support from a government that you’re busy undermining.
Israeli policy is driven by its own security interests and does not need to be identical to that of the U.S., a senior defense official said Sunday in response to Haaretz’s report that White House and State Department officials in Washington have built up a great deal of anger over Jerusalem’s “neutrality” regarding Russia’s invasion of the Crimean Peninsula.
Obama Inc. has been building up a great deal of anger over Israel long before it was even in office.
White House and State Department officials in Washington have built up a great deal of anger over Jerusalem’s “neutrality” regarding Russia’s invasion of the Crimean Peninsula.
The Israeli government does not. But unfortunately both sets of relations are basically hostile.
This follows multiple paragraphs claiming that Israel abstained from the UN vote on Crimea due to its support for
Russia when in fact its diplomats were on strike.
(Yes, that happens in Israel.)
According to the Israeli official, in response to U.S. inquiries Israel attributed its absence at the vote to the strike by the Foreign Ministry’s employees. The White House and the State Department found the explanation wanting, especially in light of the lack of advanced notice from Jerusalem.
If the State Department had been paying attention to events in Israel not involving new housing, it wouldn’t have needed advanced notice for a major story. Does no one at Foggy Bottom read the Jerusalem Post?
Adding more fuel to the flames in Washington were public remarks by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in which they maintained their “neutrality” and failed to back up the United States.
“We have good and trusting relations with the Americans and the Russians, and our experience has been very positive with both sides. So I don’t understand the idea that Israel has to get mired in this,” Lieberman told Israel’s Channel 9 television when asked about the Ukraine crisis.
When White House and State Department officials read these comments, they nearly went crazy. They were particularly incensed by Lieberman’s mentioning Israel’s relations with the United States and with Russia in the same breath, giving them equal weight.
Tellingly, Haaretz does not quote the supposed Netanyahu neutrality statement. Lieberman has extensive connections in Russia and his party depends on a Russian vote so his views are not terribly surprising.
They also don’t particularly matter. It’s like getting angry about something that Biden says.
So yes, Israel is making a show of cutting ties. Probably more of one than D.C. is.
Israel’s relations with Russia have consisted largely of empty diplomatic gestures and appeasement, surrendering territory to Russia. Israel certainly hasn’t gotten anything out of it and unlike China, there’s no point to the relationship. Russia is going to keep on backing Iran and assorted terrorists because it’s playing a larger war game with the West. Israel has no way of opting out of that game.
But neither does Israel have any incentive for tagging along on foreign policy after Obama has given the green light to Iran’s nuclear program and after Kerry blamed Israel for the collapse of the peace process.
Read the rest – Obama angry over lack of Israeli support on Ukraine