Ruling Israeli party members blast 'enemy of the Jews' Obama over settlement freeze

[Liberty Star]

Just days after Alaskan politician Palin had come out in support of expanding settlements over arab land, another storm has erupted in holy land:


29/11/2009

Likudniks blast 'enemy of the Jews' Obama over settlement freeze

By Chaim Levinson, Haaretz Correspondent


Rank-and-file Likudniks and lawmakers in the ruling Likud party lambasted the Obama administration at a gathering on Saturday, in response to Israel's decision to temporarily freeze construction in West Bank settlements.

MK Dani Danon organized the meeting after Culture and Sports Minister Limor Livnat (Likud) launched a verbal attack over the matter on U.S. President Barack Obama's administration, which she branded "terrible."

While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately distanced himself from her comments, the activists at Saturday's conference leveled further criticism at Obama over the moratorium, which Israel undertook to carry out in the wake of tremendous U.S. pressure.

"The Obama administration is an enemy of the Jews and the worst regime there ever was for the State of Israel," said Yossi Naim, the head of the Beit Aryeh regional council, at the Ra'ana meeting. "I announce to Obama: You won't be able to stop us."



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131258.html




Unlike Palin, Bush had taken similar stance as Obama pretty much on this issue post 9/11.



Palin and Clinton Agree on Settlements

Sarah Palin weighs in on settlements:


Barbara Walters: Governor, let's talk about some issues. The Middle East. The Obama administration does not want Israel to build any more settlements on what they consider "Palestinian territory." What is your view on this?

Sarah Palin: I disagree with the Obama administration on that. I believe that, um, the Jewish, uh, settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And, um, I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell, um, Israel that, that, uh, the Jewish settlements cannot expand.

Barbara Walters: Even if it's Palestinian areas?

Sarah Palin:I believe that the Jewish settlement should be allowed to expand.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/heads_explode_on_j_street.asp






Bush: End IDF occupation of Arab land


Visiting US president says agreement between Israel, PA will require 'painful political concessions' and 'adjustments' to the borders drawn for Jewish state in late 1940s

Associated Press Published: 01.10.08, 18:08 / Israel News

JERUSALEM - US President George W. Bush, summing up meetings with both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, said Thursday that a peace accord will require "painful political concessions" by each. Resolving the status of Jerusalem will be tough, he said, and he called for the end of the "occupation" of Arab land by the Israeli military.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3492850,00.html




Where does most of GOP stand today on settlements issue, with hawk Sarah Palin?

[LibertyEagle]

1. Ron Paul speaks on it, here:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=11156

2.
The Original Foreign Policy

December 18, 2006

Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.

But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?

I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”

Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.

It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. "-- George Washington

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm

[Liberty Star]

It depends, you should read about Bush Sr. was a STRONG supporter of stopping settlement growth before he was going up for reelection, the Lobby adamantly supported Bill Clinton over him.

Lobby seems to be on its way to be brought down to its right place, sad that it has managed to destroy US moral and economic standing with its poisonous influence so far.
But Clinton was nicely used till the Lewinsky love affair.



1. Ron Paul speaks on it, here:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=11156

2.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm

Thanks for posting that, we need to be reminded of that now and then.

But will GOP pay heed to these words or would it continue on path of political oblivion, that is the question.

[Oyate]

Screw the rhetoric, every president has turned a blind eye to expansionism or given token reproaches while flooding weapons and money into Israel like there's no tomorrow. ALL of them.

The GOP majority sees it as the nice Jews that God made against the evil dirty heathen a-rabs. They also see Caribou Barbie's little bunny hop and jiggling ass and go ga-ga. That's the GOP majority for you. Right there bub.

[cheapseats]

It is daytime-soap-opera-easy to realize that the label ENEMY OF THE JEWS constitutes the same target on your back as a Fatwa. ANYONE can whack you -- former business partner, scorned lover, covert operative -- and it will be traced by Crack Detectives to a swarthy, impassioned, militant, die-hard Camel Jockey OR, equally easily, to a crewcut, impassioned, militant, die-hard Skin Head. Duh.

Embittered & Disgruntled Gone Wild!!

GRAB THE GUNS!! GRAB THE GUNS!! IT'S OUR ONLY HOPE!!

Doo do doo do doo do do doo, and the politicians say, hey babe, SEND MORE CASH.

[Liberty Star]

GOP probably will not shoot itself on the foot by holding on to such beliefs if that's the case today. About one third of our evangelicals ( 20 million of the 60 milion total) - so called GOP base - were said to be supporters of settlements but that may be dated estimate.

Things have been changing in recent years as public opinion has shifted dramatically. This reminded me of post from a previous discussion:


Overwhelming majority of American public was strong supporter of Israel and its occupation of Palestinians when Clinton was in office in late 90s. In a poll after 9/11, close to 70% of Americans had blamed 9/11 on Israel but many still said that cutting ties with Israel would not completely eliminate terror threat against America . Since Iraq war start, there has been gradual bleeding in US public support for Israel but now only a minority (49%) of Americans consider themselves supporters of Israel after hitting low of 38% two years after Iraq war start.



Poll: American voters’ support of Israel drops

June 15, 2009

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- American voters' support for Israel has dropped 20 percent in the past nine months, a new survey found.

Some 49 percent of American voters call themselves supporters of Israel, down from 69 percent last September, according to the poll conducted for The Israel Project.

The number of voters who called themselves undecided rose during that same period, and the number of Palestinian supporters remained steady at 7 percent. The number of Israel supporters hit a low of 38 percent immediately following the 2005 disengagement from Gaza, with an equal rise in undecided voters.


http://jta.org/news/article/2009/06/15/1005902/poll-american-voters-suport-of-israel-drops


Another sharp reversal has been in US attitude towards Israeli settlements on occupied arab land with gradual tightening of screws. Lesser Jewish settlements were built on occupied land during Bush Presidency compared to Clinton regime and now settlement building is expected to come to a complete halt during Obama Presidency if recent news out of holy land are any indication. There has been showdown going on lately between holy land settler extremists/Natenyahoo and Obama and recently Rabbis with ties to settler movement have been arrested in NY/NJ money laundery rings by Obama administration.


This troubling news from today:


Sunday, 2 August 2009 22:38 UK

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46145000/jpg/_46145592_protesterap226.jpg
The evictions by Israel sparked protests at the scene

Israel condemned over evictions

The US has led international condemnation of Israel after it evicted nine Palestinian families living in two houses in occupied East Jerusalem.


Washington said the action was not in keeping with Israel's obligations under the so-called "road map" to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Jewish settlers moved into the houses almost immediately.

Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967 and later annexed it, a move not recognised by the world community.

The removal of the 53 people was also condemned by the United Nations, the Palestinians and the UK government.

Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said he was outraged at the action.

"Israel is once again showing its utter failure to respect international law," he said.

"New settlers from abroad are accommodating themselves and their belongings in the Palestinian houses and 19 newly homeless children will have nowhere to sleep."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8180743.stm

[Dieseler]

For just $350.00 you can send an Ethiopian Jew to Israel.
Saw it on an infomercial this morning.
There is a shortage of Ethiopian Jews in Israel.
Act now.

[Liberty Star]

Cheap labor is needed to farm the "dangerous" land of settlements outside the proper boundaries, more working hands can't hurt.


This famous video clip from holy land that was banned by youtube recently displays some of the anti-Obama temperature there among settler supporters following Obama's settlement freeze demands.

WARNING: Video contains adult language

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2241498&postcount=27

[Liberty Star]

Why it may be inappropriate to single out just Palin or label her as racially challanged:


Palin joins other GOP prospects in slamming Obama on Israel

By Eric Fingerhut · November 22, 2009

http://multimedia.jta.org/images/multimedia/sarah-palin_0/SarahPalin_m.jpg
Sarah Palin, seen at an August 2008 campaign rally in Missouri, said in an interview that Jewish settlements in Israel "should be allowed to be expanded upon." (geerlingguy / Creative Commons) WASHINGTON (JTA) -- As Sarah Palin embarked on a tour for her just published book "Going Rogue," she became the latest prospective Republican presidential candidate to criticize the Obama administration's policy on Israel.

In an interview with ABC News last week, the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate told Barbara Walters that Jewish settlements “should be allowed to be expanded upon” because “more and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead.”

At least two other likely candidates for the GOP nomination in 2012 have made similar comments in recent months.

During a trip to Israel over the summer, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said the United States should not be telling Israelis where they can live. And last month, in a speech to AIPAC leaders at a conference in San Diego, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney offered broader criticism of the administration's Middle East policy, saying it was putting too much pressure on Israel and not enough on the Arab world.

Jewish Republican insiders said the Israel talk from the prospective 2012 candidates should not be seen as an effort to court Jewish voters, but simply a desire to weigh in on an issue that is important to the candidates themselves and to conservative voters in general.

Tevi Troy, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former Bush administration liaison to the Jewish community, noted that there aren't many Jewish voters in Republican primaries. But, he added, maintaining a strong U.S.-Israel alliance is an issue that unites the sometimes disparate elements of the conservative coalition -- from neoconservatives to evangelical Christians to economic conservatives.

“If you want to be a conservative candidate, you have to check that pro-Israel box,” he said.


http://jta.org/news/article/2009/11/22/1009329/palin-republican-prospects-use-israel-to-bash-obama

[Flash]

The evangelicals destroyed the Republican Party with this pro-Israel radicalism, imo.