Moshe Phillips, member of the executive committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel / AFSI, writing for Voice of the Copts says that Democratic Senator John Kerry as the next Secretary of State is a much bigger problem for Israel than Republican former Senator Chuck Hagel as the next Secretary of Defense, despite the American Jewish establishment's vehement protesting the latter but not the former.
The role of the Secretary of State, much more than the Secretary of Defense, is "a position to effect policy as it impacts Israel, set an overall tone for US in the Middle East and be a key player in future negotations".
Kerry thinks that the settlements are the main problem, adopted the Arab view that Jerusalem is one of “the big three issues" and believes that Israel and the Palestinian Arabs equally share blame for the continuation of a decades old conflict.
Kerry’s words show that he will be hostile to the very existence of Israeli towns in the suburbs of Jerusalem. Democrats consider these “settlements” to be part of the “Occupied West Bank”and he will label them as such.Hagel is not spared either. In another article in Voice of the Copts by Heritage Foundation senior fellow and former deputy assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Brookes, Hagel is criticized for his soft stance on Iran ("Hagel has pushed for direct talks, while pushing against economic sanctions and force"), his comments in favour of cutting the Defense budget, and his underestimation of North Korea. Brookes concludes:
John Kerry’s leadership at State will be the beginning of a new effort by the Obama Administration to pressure Israel to surrender territory to the Palestinian Authority, deny Israel’s sovereignty in Jerusalem, negotiate with Hamas and accept a hostile Palestinian State along its vulnerable borders.
Israel and its American supporters are in for a very tough time with Kerry and they seem to have no idea.
The concern, of course, is that Hagel — like Kerry — will push US foreign and defense policy violently Left, more in line with Obama’s real sentiments.I end with a quotation from a third article from the same high-quality publication, about Obama's policy of appeasement towards Iran, poorly camouflaged as Iranian Nuclear Containment. The article is by Mark Langfan, who has created an original educational 3d Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply, which has been studied by US lawmakers:
And just like a nuclear-armed Hitler and/ or Togo would have found a "rational" use of a nuclear bomb in World War II, had he owned one, the Iranians will figure out a "rational" use of a nuclear bomb which will destroy the United States in the coming World War III.
Whether it is an Iranian EMP attack on Saudi Arabia, thereby gaining Iran sole control of 60 percent of the world's oil supply, or an Iranian untraceable nuclear suicide terror attack against Manhattan, it doesn't matter. The Iranian Islamic Regime is a talented, resourceful, and driven cabal of very rational people who are determined to rule the world, and impose their Shia Islam on every human on the planet.
The only person who is not "rational" in this drama is US President Obama, and neither is his merry band of sycophantic echo-chamber yes-men, who irrationally believe Israeli settlements are a greater threat to world peace than Iranian nuclear weapons.
Yes, elections have consequences, sometimes, irreparably catastrophic consequences. And, the horrific irreparable consequence of a 51 percent to 49 percent 2012 US Election is that the United States elected a President who has been, who is, and who will continue to be an Appeaser-in-Chief of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Had the world allowed Hitler or Togo's Japan to gain a nuclear bomb before World War II, there wouldn't be a free-world today. Unfortunately, Obama's containment policy will enable Iran to gain a nuclear weapons' arsenal which will bring the entire world into a dark ages from which the free-world will never return.
Unfortunately with regard to Iran, nobody dares mention the scale of what needs to be done. People (unlike in 1939) are afraid of taking enemy lives. Iran has a para-military force of 5 million. These must be eliminated, preferably from the air, including with the long-overdue use of 'mini-nukes'. I also back the unlimited use of nuclear weapons on Pakistan to protect India. Egypt must also be dealt with, as must Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. If millions of Europeans had to die to protect the world from the Nazis, why are these Islamists to be spared? Are European lives worthless?
ReplyDeleteI concur with your feeling.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Iraq war (regardless of whether one agrees with it or not), when I repeatedly heard people protesting about the number of Iraqis killed, I remember many times thinking: why not so many complained about, for instance, the people of Dresden, several tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed during the Second World War? Bomber Harris, the man chiefly responsible for it, had a statue erected to him in 1992.
Indeed. The most effective and successful campaign of the Iraq war - fallujah -was disparaged at the time. Something like 10,000 Iraqis may have died in the operation, but, if even 2000 of these were Islamists, the operation was worthwhile. As you say, We flattened Nazi cities and America decimated Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese were less of a direct threat to the West than Islamism is today. The West really must rediscover its moral confidence.
ReplyDelete