Category: Middle East

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report                                                                         

     

                                                                                                    Over 300,150 readers

    My Mission: God has uniquely designed me to seek, write, and speak the truth as I see it. Preservation of one’s wealth while providing needful income is my primary goal in these unsettled times. I have been given the ability to evaluate, study, and interpret world and national events and their influence on the future of the financial markets. This gift allows me to meet the needs of individual and institution clients.  I evaluate situations first on a fundamental basis then try to confirm on a technical basis. In the past it has been fairly successful.

                                 SPECIAL BULLITEN:

     

                                 Our President is about to be Tested – Big Time

     

                The Middle East is about to blow sky high. We have now involved the UN Security counsel plus Germany (called P-5+1) to make Iran negotiate their nuclear weapons program. The due date is September 24, 2009.  To make matters worse the President promised Israel that if they did not take military action with Iran, he would deliver crippling sanctions with Iran.

    Big deal. What we withhold, China and Russia will deliver. This is now guts ball diplomacy that will reverberate across the whole world.

                Here is a scary and realistic scenario that could happen while everyone is concerned with what is going on in the kiddy pool of health care reform and economic recovery.

                ISRAEL will never, never allow itself to be at mortal risk. If and when their intelligence concludes the Iranians are close to getting a bomb, diplomacy will end. Russian expansionism has always been in the setting of somebody else’s war. Putin will ignite the match if he ever gets the chance. Imagine. They get Georgia without a contest, and open the door to secure Ukraine, and make trillions of Rubles selling “high test” to Europe after the Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz. It would stir up a real blizzard and they could retake the Baltic region while NATO is off figuring out how to get the gulf oil turned back on.           

     Buy GLD (NYSE-$99+) or CEF (NYSE-$13+) and top off your home fuel tanks.

     Have a strong cash position also.

     

    Richard C De Graff

    256 Ashford Road

    RER      Eastford Ct 06242     

    860-522-7171 Main Office  

    800-821-6665 Watts

    860-315-7413 Home/Office

    [email protected]

     

    This report has been prepared from original sources and data which we believe reliable but we make no representation to its accuracy or completeness. Coburn & Meredith Inc. its subsidiaries and or officers may from time to time acquire, hold, sell a position discussed in this publications, and we may act as principal for our own account or as agent for both the buyer and seller.

  • Syria, Turkey Sign Strategic Deal, LIFT VISA

    Syria, Turkey Sign Strategic Deal, LIFT VISA

    Asad+ErdoganTurkey and Syria have signed a bilateral cooperation accord under which top ministers from the two countries will meet each year.

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and his Syrian counterpart Walid Mualem who is currently visiting Turkey along with President Bashar al-Assad, signed the agreement on Wednesday.

    They also said that the two countries would establish a high level strategic cooperation council.

    “We hope to turn our relations into maximum cooperation based on a principle of “zero problem,” the Turkish minister stressed.

    Touching on the meeting to be held among Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Arab League in Istanbul on Thursday to establish a dialogue between Syria and Iraq, Turkish official said that they all believed the meeting would be successful.

    Syrian president Bashar al-Assad held talks with Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan in Istanbul on Wednesday and the two countries signed a wide-ranging agreement to improve political, economic and social ties.

    They agreed to abolish visas between the two countries.

    Source:  www.alalam.ir, 17 Sept. 2009

  • Davutoglu’s Visit to Iran Highlights Ankara’s Regional Diplomacy

    Davutoglu’s Visit to Iran Highlights Ankara’s Regional Diplomacy

    Davutoglu’s Visit to Iran Highlights Ankara’s Regional Diplomacy

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 167
    September 14, 2009 04:19 PM Age: 1 days
    By: Saban Kardas
    Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu paid an official visit to Iran on September 12-13. He met the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani and the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili. Following his meeting with Mottaki, Davutoglu and his counterpart stressed the importance they attach to bilateral relations, as well as regional cooperation. Davutoglu noted that the two countries shared deep-rooted historical ties and their neighborly relations are based on the principle of refraining from interfering in each other’s affairs. He outlined many areas where they explored boosting bilateral relations, ranging from economic cooperation to security. Referring to this multi-dimensional partnership, Mottaki described Turkish-Iranian relations as “strategic” (Cihan Haber Ajansi, Anadolu Ajansi, September 12).

    The foreign ministers emphasized that given the centrality of the threat of terrorism facing both countries, they will continue their collaboration in combating this phenomenon, referring to their joint efforts against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK). Davutoglu also highlighted the flourishing economic activity between the two countries, noting that the bilateral trade volume has reached $11 billion annually, despite the global economic crisis. In addition to discussing cooperation in various areas, the two main items on Davutoglu’s agenda were the nuclear issue and energy cooperation. Davutoglu’s meeting came in the wake of the announcement by Washington that it will consider holding talks with Tehran, despite the latter’s reluctance to discuss its nuclear program. Iran forwarded a proposal to the major powers expressing its readiness to discuss global nuclear disarmament, as well as other international issues. Although the White House did not find Iran’s proposals as responsive to its concerns about its nuclear program, it nonetheless showed interest in holding direct talks with Iran (Today’s Zaman, September 14).

    Davutoglu reiterated Turkey’s position that the resolution of the nuclear problem should be based on mutual respect. He also conveyed to Jalili Turkey’s readiness to host negotiations between Iran and Western countries (Anadolu Ajansi, September 13). However, this is not the first time that Turkey has proposed to mediate between Iran and the West, and its previous offers failed to produce any practical results. Reportedly, both Washington and Tehran were reluctant to see Ankara play such a role (EDM, March 10). Following the press briefing with Davutoglu, Mottaki thanked his Turkish counterpart for Turkey’s support for Iran’s right to obtain nuclear energy (Anadolu Ajansi, September 12). Although Ankara remains eager to act as a mediator, what leverage it may hold to convince Tehran to compromise on the Western demands remains to be seen.

    Energy was the other key issue on the agenda. Turkey has a major incentive to help solve the diplomatic problems bedeviling Iran’s relations with the West and bring Iran into the orbit of the European energy security discussions, a policy which is also supported by many European countries.

    Turkey seeks to deepen its energy partnership with Iran, especially considering its efforts to become a major energy hub. Indeed, one of the biggest obstacles before the Nabucco project, which Turkey considers as a strategic priority, is finding suppliers, Iran is the most likely alternative, since it possesses the second largest gas reserves in the world. Turkey indeed has been eager to act as a bridge connecting Iranian gas to the European grid through Nabucco. Although Ankara signed a major energy cooperation deal with Iran in 2007, it had to suspend those plans due to American objections. U.S. sanctions toward Iran prevent the development of the Iranian gas sector and the export of its gas to Western markets. Since its fields are underdeveloped and it needs immense transportation infrastructure, Iran has not emerged as a major player in gas markets, and even has been forced to import gas from Turkmenistan to meet its domestic demand. Prior to the signing of the Nabucco inter-governmental agreement in Ankara, Turkish officials, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan emphasized their willingness to tap into Iranian gas, but U.S. officials reiterated their objection to the Iranian option (EDM, July 14). However, Davutoglu said that Turkey would work to help Iran export its gas to European markets.

    Turkey’s Iran policy resonates well with the recent course of its regional diplomacy. Ankara has fostered closer regional dialogue with Iraq, Syria and other Arab countries in order to create a peaceful neighborhood and develop closer economic partnerships, including energy projects (EDM, August 12). Bringing Iran into the same circle is definitely a prime motive driving Ankara’s policies toward Tehran.

    Davutoglu, as the architect of this policy, appreciates the central role that Iran plays in the region and expresses his aversion to any instability that might be caused by the ongoing diplomatic problems, as well as the developments in Iranian domestic politics. This concern, however, results in a status quo policy of supporting the Iranian government. As reflected in Ankara’s acquiescent attitude during the Iranian regime’s harsh crackdown on the protestors following the disputed presidential elections, Turkey was criticized for not being sensitive to domestic developments in Iranian politics (EDM, June 18).

    Another underlying problem in Turkey’s Iran policy concerns the differing interpretations both parties attach to “regional cooperation.” Iran views regional cooperation as a way to limit the involvement of the West and the United States in regional affairs, as well as to exclude Israel. Turkey, in contrast, values its ties to the West and defines its regional policies in complementary terms. Indeed, such differences of opinion were apparent in Ahmadinejad’s statements following his meeting with Davutoglu, which contained strong anti-Western rhetoric. Ahmadinejad claimed that the improvement of Turkish-Iranian relations is an obligation “in a process whereby great and oppressor powers are in decline” (Anadolu Ajansi, September 12).

    A major test for Turkey’s regional diplomacy might perhaps stem from its ability to foster closer cooperation among its neighbors, while also ensuring that it does not present an anti-Western platform.

    https://jamestown.org/program/davutoglus-visit-to-iran-highlights-ankaras-regional-diplomacy/
  • U.N. commission accuses Israel, Hamas of Gaza war crimes

    U.N. commission accuses Israel, Hamas of Gaza war crimes

    32f16d58cde789e37173d65d437c688e

    VideoIraq shoe-thrower freed, accuses guards of torture

    McClatchy Newspapers

    AFP/File – Israeli artillery shells explode over the Gaza Strip as seen from Gaza’s Jabalia refugee camp in … By Cliff Churgin, McClatchy Newspapers Cliff Churgin, Mcclatchy Newspapers Tue Sep 15, 7:03 pm ET

    JERUSALEM – After a six-month investigation, the U.N.’s Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict has concluded there’s evidence that Israeli forces and Palestinian militants committed war crimes during Israel’s recent military operations in Gaza .

    The mission, headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone , called on the United Nations Security Council to monitor Israeli and Palestinian investigations into these charges and urged that if these aren’t taking place in good faith to refer these cases to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands .

    The 554-page report released Tuesday has detailed investigations into 36 incidents, including some that McClatchy reported previously, such as the shooting of civilians with white flags, the firing of white phosphorus shells and charges that Israeli soldiers used Palestinian men as human shields.

    According to the report, these violations weren’t aberrations but rather appeared to be “the result of deliberate guidance issued to soldiers.”

    The commission charged Palestinian groups with indiscriminately firing at southern Israel and causing terror among the civilian population. The mission didn’t find evidence of Israeli charges that Palestinian militants deliberately hid among civilians. Israel has released a number of videos purporting to show Hamas militants using civilians for cover.

    The commission, charged with investigating allegations of war crimes related to Israel’s military operations in Gaza , began its work April 3 . The 22-day military operation, which began last Dec. 27 , cost the lives of more than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.

    The four-person mission came under attack almost immediately from Israeli officials, who refused to cooperate. They charged the mission with being one-sided, pointing out that the original mandate authorized an investigation into charges of Israeli war crimes and was altered only by an agreement between Goldstone and the president of the U.N. Human Rights Council .

    Special criticism was reserved for commission member Christine Chinkin , a professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science , when it was discovered that she’d signed a letter last January published in The Sunday Times that accused Israel of war crimes.

    A constant theme of Israeli soldiers’ testimony after the war was that the Israel Defense Forces had made the protection of soldiers’ lives its top priority. The report criticizes this approach, saying, “They must avoid taking undue risks with their soldiers’ lives but neither can they transfer that risk to civilian men, women and children.”

    The mission didn’t confine itself to investigating the operation. The report also refers to Israel’s blockade of Gaza as a “collective punishment” and says “the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing … could lead a competent court to find the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.”

    Mark Regev , a spokesman for the Israeli prime minister’s office, reacted harshly to the report: “It was born in sin. Countries with atrocious human rights records sit there and criticize Israel . It’s not just Israel that criticized the Human Rights Council . Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-Moon have criticized its obsession with Israel ,” referring to the former and current U.N. secretaries general.

    Israeli human rights groups have issued a statement calling on the government to “conduct an independent and impartial investigation into the suspicions.”

    Avi Bell , a professor of Law at Bar Ilan University , took exception to the report, disagreeing with its legal conclusions and pointing out, “They say they are a fact-finding mission. So how are they coming up with all these legal conclusions, especially wrong ones?”

    The report is due to be presented to the U.N. Human Rights Council on Sept. 29 and the council will then decide whether to refer it to the Security Council . If it’s referred to the Security Council , that council will decide whether to adopt the recommendations.

    According to Bell, if charges are referred to the International Criminal Court, the court will have no jurisdiction, since Israel isn’t a party to the court. “In order for the International Criminal Court to have jurisdiction, the accused has to be a citizen of a state that accepts the court’s jurisdiction,” he said.

    (Churgin is a McClatchy special correspondent.)

    MORE FROM MCCLATCHY

    Israeli military blames civilian deaths on ‘errors’

    Israeli troops killed Gaza children carrying white flag, witnesses say

    Did the Israelis use white phosphorus in populated areas?

    Israeli soldiers in Gaza describe a ‘moral Twilight Zone’

    Follow Mideast news at McClatchy’s Checkpoint Jerusalem

  • Turkey seeks shield amid missile-defense negotiations

    Turkey seeks shield amid missile-defense negotiations

    a2

    Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu says it’s not so and American officials are mum, but according to a top defense lobbyist, “negotiations are ongoing” over U.S. plans to deploy a missile-defense shield in Turkey, a possibility floated last week by a Polish newspaper.

    Riki Ellison, chairman of the U.S.-based Missle Defense Advocacy Alliance, or MDAA, insisted to the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review that claims by the Polish newspaper are valid.

    The stir began last week when the Warsaw-based daily Gazeta Wyborcza reported that U.S. President Barack Obama has “all but abandoned” plans to locate parts of a controversial U.S. missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The newspaper said the Pentagon has been asked to explore switching planned interceptor-rocket launch sites from the two Central European states to Israel, Turkey or the Balkans.

    U.S. plans to deploy a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic have created serious tension between Russia and the United States in the past. Russia has repeatedly responded to U.S. missile-defense plans with countermeasures.

    It is no secret that the Obama administration’s promise to “reset” relations with Russia prompted Obama to launch a strategic review of the defense shield.

    Amid the Pentagon’s search for a new strategy, last week’s reports turned heads toward Turkey. Foreign Minister Davutoğlu immediately responded to the claims, saying that the government has not received any request from the United States or NATO regarding the missile-defense project.

    Ellison said he hopes to see a working missile-defense shield in operation by 2013. Ellison’s MDAA is a nonprofit organization launched in 2002 to advocate deployment of an anti-missile program.

    Ellison said he believes there will be a concerted effort from the United States to work with the Turkish government to install missile shields at four bases in Turkey. “Negotiations are happening already and they will continue to go forward,” he said.

    Ellison is evidently well informed on the strategy. However, Turkey’s acceptance of the missile-defense plan may not be realistic, given the risk to its relations with Russia, already frayed by other tensions. Turkey may be a U.S. ally, but Russia supplies the majority of its energy and has a hand in Turkey’s future in the Caucasus.

    Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s Aug. 6 visit to Ankara for talks with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdoğan secured some 20 agreements covering energy, trade and other areas, including nuclear cooperation. Russian authorities have also agreed to scrap regulations requiring the full inspection of Turkish goods at customs.

    Turkey has been playing a very careful game for some time when it comes to its relations with Russia. Ankara does not want to make an enemy out of Moscow.

    Accepting the deployment of U.S. defense shields in Turkey would be a major step toward a whole new round of tense Turkish-Russian relations at a critical and vulnerable time. Russia would probably play its energy card against Turkey and could even annul this year’s previous agreements.

    The deployment could also have a negative impact on Turkey’s relations with its neighboring countries in the Middle East. Starting with the Turkish Parliament’s March 2003 decision to prevent the United States from invading Iraq through Turkish territory, Turkey has been trying to follow a relatively independent line in its foreign policy. Acceptance of the missile shield would destroy most of Turkey’s diplomatic capital among Middle Eastern countries, which perceived Turkey as making its own decisions after the 2003 bill.

    There is another scenario that sounds more realistic: Turkey currently has no defense against ballistic missiles. According to past news reports, Turkey has been planning to purchase a missile-defense system for some time. Turkey has begun “preliminary talks with the United States, Russia, Israel and China with regard to its plans to buy its first missile defense system, worth more than $1 billion,” wrote the Daily News last year.

    This invites the question: Is missile defense a matter of packaging? Might Turkey avoid allowing the United States to install a missile-defense system on her soil? Rather, might the rumors circulating stem from a bid by Turkey to buy a missile-defense system for herself?

    It is hard to imagine the difference would calm Russia. It is known that Russia is firmly against any U.S. missile shields in Turkey, just as it is against the installations in Central Europe. And despite its determination to expand its military capabilities, Turkey would probably like to stay out of the struggle between Washington and Moscow.

    Hurriyetdailynews
  • Obama and the Holy Land

    Obama and the Holy Land

    at

    by Edward Bernard Glick

    When Lyndon Baines Johnson was a young congressman, he saved 42 Jews from the Nazis. Indirect evidence shows that he rescued another 400 Jews, including the famed orchestra conductor Erich Leinsdorf. While Johnson didn’t risk his life to save Jews, as European non-Jews did, there are those who believe that he should be honored in Yad Vashem, Jerusalem’s Holocaust Memorial Museum, for being what the Israelis call a Righteous Gentile.

    After the 1967 Arab-Israel Six Day War, when he was President, he met with Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin in Glassboro, New Jersey. Mr. Kosygin asked him why America supported Israel against the Arab world with all its population and with all its oil resources. LBJ replied: “Because we think it’s right.” The Russian leader shook his head in disbelief.

    In June 2009, in a speech in Cairo, President Barack Obama announced a historic American tilt toward the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is too early to tell if he, unlike his predecessors, believes in what has been known as the special relationship between America and Israel, However, most of his fellow Americans still believe in it. Not only did they rejoice when President Harry Truman made the United States the first country in the world to recognize Israeli independence in  May 1948, but they  allowed  both Republican and Democratic administrations to put their tax dollars where their feelings are.

    Since 1949, the United States has sent Israel over $100 billion in aid. This amount does not include funds from the Defense Department budget for joint military projects like the Arrow missile, for which Israel has received more than $1 billion since 1986. As far back as 1974, General George Keegan, a former chief of US Air Force intelligence, said that Israel’s contribution to the United States was “worth $1,000 for every dollar’s worth of aid we have granted her.” Perhaps he was thinking of the fully functioning Soviet SAM (surface to air) missile system that the Israelis captured in Egypt and shipped to the United States enabling America to counter a weapon that was shooting down U.S. airplanes during the Vietnam war. In 1979 more than 170 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to President Jimmy Carter urging him to recognize Israel as a valuable and dependable military ally.

    No matter what the state of the US economy, there has never been a demand by the American people to halt or diminish US aid to Israel. There is no such demand now.

    What are the historical, religious, cultural, political, and strategic reasons for all this? First of all, America’s Christians are the only ones who not only employ the term “Judeo-Christian heritage,” but who glory in its usage. Secondly, while the first British settlers in North America never called their settlements New Jerusalem, New Israel, or New Zion, as some of them had wished, as their descendants moved to the north, south, and west, they placed hundreds of Biblically derived names on the map of the future United States. Thus there is a Jericho in Alabama, an Eden in Arizona, a Samaria in Idaho, a Hebron in North Dakota, a Lake Sinai in South Dakota, a Jordan in Illinois, a Zoar in Massachusetts, an Elisha in Rhode Island, a Sodom in Ohio, a Bethlehem in Pennsylvania, a New Canaan in Connecticut, a Goshen County in Wyoming, and an Adam in Florida. Four places in four states are called Jerusalem. And no fewer than twenty-seven towns, cities, and counties are called Salem, which comes from the Hebrew word shalom, which means peace. No other country has so linked its geographic nomenclature with that of the Land of Israel.

    There are historical reasons for this. The Pilgrims read the Old Testament. Some did so in Hebrew. Their interest in the Hebrew and the Old Testament was shared by other Americans in later centuries. A student who couldn’t translate the Bible from Hebrew into Latin could not in the early days get into Harvard. A teacher who knew no Hebrew couldn’t become a faculty member at King’s College, the original name of Columbia University. Hebrew was once a compulsory subject at Yale, which has the Hebrew motto Urim V’turim (Light and Truth) on its crest. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon faith, studied Hebrew. In 1902 Secretary of State John Hay wrote a handwritten letter to an Indiana Jew in Hebrew. In the twentieth century Edmund Wilson, the great American social and literary critic, was a student of Hebrew.

    Now, the United States has not supported restored Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East merely because many of its more educated Christian citizens knew Hebrew several centuries ago, or because a tiny fraction of them know it now. However, the Hebrew/Old Testament connection in America’s intellectual history certainly has nourished the soil in which America’s support for modern Israel sprouted.

    During the American Revolution, clergymen compared the colonists’ fight with King George III to the plight of the ancient Israelites in the Egypt of the Pharaohs. After the Revolution, Christians in all walks of life suggested forms of governance that were similar to their perceptions of those of ancient Israel, and there were those who called for Jewish political restoration in Palestine.

    In 1818 Thomas Kennedy, a Catholic legislator, asked during a presentation in favor of equality for Maryland’s Jews: “May we not hope that the banners of the children of Israel shall again be unfurled on the walls of Jerusalem on the Holy Hill of Zion?” In 1819 John Adams wrote to a Jewish citizen: “I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation.” In 1845 Brigham Young proclaimed: “The Jews among all nations are hereby commanded, in the name of the Messiah, to repair to return to Jerusalem in Palestine . . . and also to organize and establish their own political government.”

    In 1891, five years before Dr. Theodor Herzl published his Der Judenstaat and six years before he convened the first World Zionist Congress, an American Gentile, William E. Blackstone, publicly transformed what had been mainly religious and emotional yearnings of Jews for Palestine into a political manifestation of Jewish nationalism and Jewish self-determination. Blackstone sent President Benjamin Harrison a petition entitled “Palestine for the Jews.” It was signed by 400 hundred of the most prominent Americans. If the Great Powers, it asked, could, in the Berlin Treaty of 1878, give Bulgaria to the Bulgarians and Serbia to the Serbs, “does not Palestine as rightfully belong to the Jews?”

    Today we associate Christian Zionism with the Christian Evangelicals. They are now in fact the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel segment of American Christendom. But the first American Christian to call himself a Zionist was the Reverend Dr. Francis J. Clay Moran, in a letter to the New York Times, published over a hundred years ago. After Moran came Adolph A. Berle, a former professor of applied Christianity at Tufts University, who, in 1918, published a book called The World Significance of a Jewish State. Harry Emerson Fosdick, of Union Theological Seminary, in 1927, wrote a book on Zionism called A Pilgrimage to Palestine. In 1929, John Haynes Holmes, minister of New York’s Community Church, published Palestine Today and Tomorrow: A Gentile’s Survey of Zionism. Dr. Walter Clay Loudermilk, the most renowned soil scientist, ecologist, and environmentalist of his day, also became a Christian Zionist.

    In the 1930s he traveled the world to study how people used their land and in what condition they passed it on to the next generation. When he came to British Palestine, he was so impressed by how the Jews treated their land that he wrote that if Moses had foreseen what was to become of the Earth, he “doubtless would have been inspired to deliver an Eleventh Commandment: ‘Thou shalt inherit the Holy Earth as a faithful steward, conserving its resources and productivity from generation to generation. . . . If any shall fail in this stewardship of the land, thy fruitful fields shall become sterile stony ground and wasting gullies, and thy descendants shall decrease and live in poverty or perish from off the face of the Earth.” Since the Jews of Palestine were obeying Loudermilk  Eleventh Commandment, he became an ardent Christian Zionist, publishing, in 1944, his bestseller, Palestine: Land of Promise.

    So it is America’s Christians, not America’s Jews, who made it politically correct for every American President since Woodrow Wilson and every American Congress since the early 1920s to support both the dream and the reality of a renascent Jewish state in the Middle East.

    President Obama has been trying, so far unsuccessfully, to tilt toward Iran. In a speech before the Turkish Parliament in April 2009, he said: “I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the United States seeks engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” This is the same Iran whose president denies the Holocaust and who wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Though the Israelis consider Iran’s nuclear weapons an existential threat, Mr. Obama is pressuring them not to attack preemptively. However, also in April 2009, Shimon Peres, the President of Israel, and the father of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, said that if Mr. Obama  will not soften the Iranian President’s approach “we’ll strike him.” While refusing to go into detail about the military option to foil Iran’s nuclear program, Mr. Peres did say that Israel could not carry out any strike against the Islamic republic without America. “We certainly cannot go it alone and we definitely can’t go against the U.S.”

    Mr. Obama is also tilting toward the Palestinians, even though the Norwegian Fafo Institute, the sponsor of the 1993 Oslo Middle East accords, recently found that a majority of Palestinians oppose a two-state solution. Thirty-three percent opt for Israel’s annihilation and 20 percent favor a Palestinian state that would entirely engulf Israel.

    For more than sixty years, American. presidents and the American people have been pro-Israel.  As recently as March 3, 2009, the Gallup Poll ranked Israel as the fourth preferred ally of the United States, behind Britain, Canada, and Japan. And as recently as August 10, 2009, seventy percent of Americans say that Israel is a U.S. ally, nearly twice the finding for Egypt, the most highly regarded Islamic country. Only 8 percent of Americans say Israel is an enemy, and 16 percent put it somewhere in between.

    So these questions arise: Has President Obama abandoned the special America-Israel relationship? Has he become so pro-Arab that he is anti-Israel, as almost two-thirds of the Israelis now believe, according to the University of Tel Aviv’s War and Peace Index of August 9, 2009? Is he, as the British writer Melanie Phillips has suggested, America’s first “pro-Islamist President?” Are America and Israel heading for a great confrontation, or at least for the greatest disagreement in the history of their relationship, as U.S. Middle East expert Robert Satloff recently told Newsweek magazine?

    On July 4, 2009 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “We have a brave relationship with the United States, a bond that President Obama himself defined as unbreakable. Indeed, our bond with the U.S. is unbreakable.” But that is not the belief of other prominent Israelis. They are not so sure that Israel has a friend in the White House. And they wonder if the connection with the United States is still a good one. For instance, Caroline Glick, the deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, argues that “both in terms of pure economics and of the restrictions the Obama administration is now placing on Israeli use of U.S. technologies and munitions, maintaining U.S. military assistance makes less and less sense with each passing day. Israel may indeed be best served by simply ending its military assistance package. By making clear that it is not dependent on Obama’s kindness, it would be expanding its maneuvering room on other issues as well.” She is probably alluding to Iran.

    On the American side, Israel’s failure to defeat Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza may be be interpreted as meaning that it is no longer a strong military power and is now a strategic liability rather than a strategic asset to the United States.

    Whatever the case, one thing is clear: Mr. Obama does not view Israel as Democratic Presidents Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson did. Nor does he view it as Republican Presidents Richard M. Nixon and George W. Bush did. Until the end of his life, the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was the chief of staff of the Israel Army during the 1967 Six Day war, believed that Mr. Nixon saved the Jewish state. By warning the Soviets to stay out of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and by replacing the vast amounts of equipment that Israel lost during the first week of that war, Mr. Nixon made it possible for the Israelis to counterattack and beat their Egyptian foes.

    Anne Bayevsky, a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, is convinced that Mr. Obama is “the most hostile sitting American president in the history of the state of Israel.” Similarly, John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former American ambassador to the United Nations, has written that “Relations between the U.S. and Israel are more strained than at any time since the 1956 Suez Canal crisis.” And Richard Baehr, the chief political correspondent of The American Thinker, feels that Mr. Obama treats “Israel more contemptuously than any President since the founding of the [Jewish] state.” On the other hand, on August 20, 2009 the Israeli news source Debka reported that President Obama has secretly assured Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that confrontation between America and Israel is undesirable, and that relations between the White House and Mr. Netanyahu’s office will revert to their normal friendly level.

    We shall have to wait and see whether and the extent to which Ms. Bayevsky, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Baehr, and Debka are right or wrong. We shall also have to wait and see what happens if Israel , the modern reincarnation of the Jewish Holy Land, strikes Iran against the wishes of President Obama.

    Source: www.americanthinker.com/, 23 August 2009