Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 18             B"H   April 2010             NUMBER 4

"For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest"

April 2010


  • ISRAELI NEWS TODAY - APRIL 25 ..............Hana Levi Julian and Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
  • DEATH OF A CITY ..............Prof. Paul Eidelberg

  • REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND ISRAEL ..............Caroline Glick
  • AMERICANS, IF NOT OBAMA, KNOW ISRAEL'S STRATEGIC VALUE ..............Judith Apter Klinghoffer

  • THE SECOND WAR OF INDEPENDENCE ..............Elyakim HaEtzni

  • OBAMA HAS SHIFTED U.S. POLICY AGAINST ISRAEL ..............Jonathan Tobin


    THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
    P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
    E-Mail: ** URL:
    Copyright 2010 Bernard J. Shapiro
    Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)




    WINSTON MID EAST ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY April 22, 2010  Email: Please disseminate & re-post. If you publish, send us a copy. Many of our articles appear in


    New York Times Makes It Official: Obama Has Shifted U.S. Policy Against Israel

    By Jonathan Tobin

    forwarded with major commentary by Emanuel A. Winston,
    Freeman Center Middle East Analyst & Commentator


    President Barack Hussein Obama’s policy toward the Jewish Nation/State of Israel is ominously hostile. Some will recall that Adolph Hitler developed a plan to blame the Jews for Germany’s economic collapse into Super Hyper Inflation.


    Never mind the twisted logic that the minuscule population of Jews had mysteriously caused the Deutschmark to become worthless paper which was printed by the tonnage by Hitler’s regime. The people were in pain over the government’s mishandling of the economy and welcomed Hitler’s demand to blame the Jews.

    Presently, Obama’s regime is similarly printing tonnage of green paper money while at the same time spending trillions America doesn’t have. Someone must take responsibility for a proud nation in free-fall over the mortgage fiasco, initiated by Freddie Mac and Fannie May who pushed lending to poor voters who not only didn’t have a credit rating but could never pay a monthly mortgage fee.

    Many were in a welfare category which Obama understood very well as he was an experienced 'community organizer' who wanted indigent people to have a house paid for by working taxpayers - or the so-called rich who were already paying most of the nation’s taxes.

    Obama and the Left Liberal Democrats needed voters in the black and Latino communities who would flock to unaffordable mortgages where ‘somehow’ they wouldn’t really have to pay. But, they were joyfully delighted to vote for a President who looked like of their own...who promised to take the savings of those who worked and give it to the non-working poor. This was called "re-distribution of wealth".

    But, every Rainbow touches the ground and disappears. Now the only problem was to find someone to blame for bankrupting the country. As Hitler did, the logical choice was the Jews who had nothing to do with the German nation’s failure. But, who would listen to the denial of the Jews when a great charismatic orator told the crowds that it wasn’t their fault or the fault of the State, it wasn’t the fault of the good German people - it was the Jews. Hitler had Joseph Goebbels, the newspapers, the radio and the judges in the courts to pick up the idea that the German nation was suffering - because of the Jews.

    Now it’s 2010 and Barack Hussein Obama is whipping up the idea that the Jews of Israel are somehow not complying with Obama’s idea of national suicide for Israel. Since the hard-working Jews of Israel and the Jews of America are really one, clearly, the imminent further collapse of America’s dollar and her high unemployment meet the test and logic of Hitler’s policies of prodding good Germans into a rage against the Jews. Why not employ the same plan to explain away Obama’s failure in managing the American economy?

    It really doesn’t matter where the fuse is lit, people in pain will accept any rationale to explain away their hurt, their lost money and their lost security. They always need to blame someone else.

    Note! The attack against Goldman-Sachs, directing the peoples’ anger at Wall Street - despite the revealed facts that the start of America’s collapse was in the American government and the deliberate continuation of the Welfare State policy by the politicians behind Fannie May and Freddy Mac as well as those "community organizers" - like Barack Hussein Obama who was ‘guiding’ ACORN.


    Now we have OBAMA-CARE Welfare with working taxpayers’ money picking up the bill in a planned transfer-of-the-wealth scheme bragged about by Obama in his election campaign which is beyond the wildest dreams of America every actually paying off the huge debt that it costs. But yet, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats are spending frantically with money America doesn’t have - except for the newly printed dollar which is worth less and less.

    Obama is following Hitler’s plan to devalue the dollar through Hyper Inflation which must come soon and using devalued dollars to pay off the humongous national debt. But, Obama still needs someone to blame besides himself and the Democrats. That process started within the first days of Obama taking office as he attacked the Jewish Nation/State of Israel to light the fuse of Hitlerian Jew Hatred.



    Jewish World Review April 19, 2010 / 5 Iyar 5770
    The New York Times Makes It Official: Obama Has Shifted U.S. Policy Against Israel
    By Jonathan Tobin




    If there were any lingering doubts in the minds of Democrats who care about Israel that the president they helped elect has fundamentally altered American foreign policy to the Jewish state's disadvantage, they are now gone. The New York Times officially proclaimed the administration's changed attitude in a front-page story last week that ought to send chills down the spine of anyone who believed Barack Obama when he pledged in 2008 that he would be a loyal friend of Israel.


    In the view of the paper's Washington correspondents, the moment that signaled what had already been apparent to anyone who was paying attention was the president's declaration at a Tuesday news conference that resolving the Middle East conflict was "a vital national security interest of the United States." Mr. Obama went on to state that the conflict is "costing us significantly in terms of blood and treasure," thus attempting to draw a link between Israel's attempts to defend itself with the safety of American troops who are fighting Islamist terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. By claiming the Arab-Israeli conflict to be a "vital national security interest" that must be resolved, the "frustrated" Obama is making it clear that he will push hard to impose a solution on the parties. 


    The significance of this false argument is that it not only seeks to wrongly put the onus on Israel for the lack of a peace agreement but that it also now attempts to paint any Israeli refusal to accede to Obama's demands as a betrayal in which a selfish Israel is stabbing America in the back. The response from Obama to this will be, the Times predicts, "tougher policies toward Israel," since it is, in this view, ignoring America's interests and even costing American lives. 


    The problem with this policy is that the basic premise behind it is false. Islamists may hate Israel, but that is not why they are fighting the United States. They are fighting America because they rightly see the West and its culture, values, and belief in democracy as antithetical to their own beliefs and a threat to its survival and growth as they seek to impose their medieval system everywhere they can. Americans are not dying because Israelis want to live in Jerusalem or even the West Bank or even because there is an Israel. If Israel were to disappear tomorrow, that catastrophe would certainly be cheered in the Arab and Islamic world, but it would not end the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, cause Iran to stop its nuclear program, or put al-Qaeda out of business. In fact, a defeat for a country allied with the United States would strengthen Iran and al-Qaeda.

    But undeterred by the facts and the experience of a generation of failed peace plans that have always foundered not on Israeli intransigence but rather on the absolute refusal of any Palestinian leader to put his signature on a document that will legitimize a Jewish state within any borders, Obama is pushing ahead. In the view of unnamed administration officials who have helpfully explained Obama's policies to the Times, it is now only a matter of time before the president puts forward his own peace plan. And as the debate on health care illustrated, Obama will attempt to shove his diktat down the throats of the Israelis, whether the vast majority of Americans who support Israel like it or not.

    As the Times notes, there is a great irony to Obama's blazing anger at the Israelis and the urgency with which he views the issue. It comes at a time when the overwhelming majority of Israelis have "become disillusioned with the whole idea of resolving the conflict. Mr. Netanyahu's right-wing coalition government has long been skeptical about the benefits of a peace deal with the Palestinians. But skepticism has taken root in the Israeli public as well, particularly after Israel saw little benefit from its traumatic withdrawal from Gaza in 2005." In other words, after countless concessions made to the Arabs at Oslo, and in subsequent accords and after offers from Israel of a state comprising Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem were refused by the Palestinians in 2000 and 2008, most Israelis have finally figured out that the other side doesn't want to end the conflict. And they are baffled as to why Obama and his advisers haven't come to the same all too obvious conclusion.


    But with the Obama administration now so passionately committed to hammering Israel even as it apparently neglects to take action to stop Iran's nuclear program, the question remains what will be the response of pro-Israel Democrats. As Obama draws closer to all-out diplomatic war on Israel's government, the obligation for principled Democrats to speak up in open opposition to these policies cannot be avoided. While many Democrats have sought to confuse the issue or avoid conflict with the president, stories such as the one on the front page of the Times makes it clear that sooner or later, pro-Israel Democrats are going to have to decide whether partisan loyalties will trump their support for the Jewish state's survival.




    Death of a City

    Paul Eidelberg


    Although he lived some 2,500 years ago, one can learn much from the Greek historian Hieronymus.

    Perhaps no chapter of his history of the ancient Mediterranean world is more interesting than that which discusses Aleris, a city of high culture. Located on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean, Aleris preceded Athens in the arts and sciences, as well as in commerce and agriculture. Hieronymus claims that descendants of exiled Aleri citizens, who had settled in Athens, were the originators of Greek philosophy.

    Be this as it may, Aleris was the envy of the Mediterranean. The city often found itself at war with other cities (or city-states). But such was the undaunted courage of her citizens and the advanced state of her military arts, that Aleris readily defeated her enemies on the battlefield.

    According to Hieronymus, war in those days was the norm of “international” relations. Pacifism was unheard of. Yet, toward the end of the sixth century before the common era, something unprecedented happened: a peace party called the “Praxites” came to power in Aleris. The peace party constantly magnified the danger of war in order to make citizens feel dependent on their rulers and on the new political order. Hieronymus explains:

    “Prior to the reign of the Praxites, the people of Aleris were spirited warriors: proud of their heritage, disdainful of their enemies, superior to all in battle, and second to none in their love of liberty. Fearing only the gods, and believing in a life after death, they were all the more disposed to fight and die in defense of their fatherland.

    “Now, by means of deception and bribery, the Praxites came to power. The new rulers, consisting of sophists, rejected Aleris’ sacred tradition. They realized, however, that they would have to undermine the religion of their people to render them fearful of war, pliable, and dependent on their government.

    “Accordingly, the priests were given lucrative government positions to silence them about the warlike intentions of Aleris’ enemies. Also, the Praxites curtailed and eventually eliminated public funds for the religious education of youth. In this way the anti-traditionalist peace party diminished the likelihood of any popular revolution led by the old religious leaders.

    “Recognizing that war fosters public-spiritedness which could threaten their own power, the peace party established schools to foster pacifism. Paltry self-indulgence became the way of life of a once austere city. Gone was the manliness of previous times.

    “The new educators of Aleris constantly intoned peace as the highest value. In truth, they were only animated by the desire for comfortable self-preservation. But by making the city’s educators part of the ruling elite, the Praxites had no fear of revolution from that source.

    “Meanwhile the Praxites corrupted the Aleris army. Officers were allowed to retire at the age of 40, and with a pension that would make them virtually independent. High-ranking officers were co-opted into the peace party or made the overseers of some commercial or other enterprise. This bound the military to the ruling elite and the existing political order. There was no fear of a military coup.

    “To further consolidate their power, the Praxites abolished private enterprise in Aleris. They understood that nothing makes a people more spirited than possessing their own means of livelihood. By making citizens dependent on government largesse, the peace party rendered the people of Aleris servile.

    “Consistent therewith, the ruling elite greatly multiplied the number of government jobs. Although most of these jobs had little or no economic justification, they increased the number of citizens who would oppose any change in the political and economic status quo. In this way the peace party precluded revolution from below as well as from above.

    “Despite the veneer of democracy, the peace party thus controlled all the levers of power in Aleris for many years. And since the mantras of 'peace' and 'democracy' were always on the lips of politicians, priests, and educators, the people were held in blissful ignorance of the tyranny that held sway in their city. They believed that their safety and welfare depended not only on the ruling elite but on the existing form of government.

    “When any brave soul spoke up and sought to awaken people from this thralldom, he was ignored or maligned as an enemy of peace and democracy, incarcerated or exiled.

    Of course this condition could not possibly last. Although the rulers of Aleris signed peace treaties with their neighbors, the latter regarded such treaties as preparation periods for the next war, which eventually descended on Aleris like a thunderbolt. These peace treaties only gulled the people of Aleris and made them less vigilant.

    “And so, a slavish craving for peace produced only war—the last to be fought by a once brave and noble people.”




    Jewish World Review April 23, 2010 / 9 Iyar 5770
    The Strategic Foundations of the US-Israel Alliance
    By Caroline B. Glick

    A MUST READ essay explaining why a strong Israel is essential for US national security. Its author is one of the foremost commentators on Middle East affairs.
    PLEASE FORWARD this column to anybody who feels the need to defend the only democracy in the Middle East
    | Israel's status as the US's most vital ally in the Middle East has been so widely recognized for so long that over the years, Israeli and American leaders alike have felt it unnecessary to explain what it is about the alliance that makes it so important for the US.


    Today, as the Obama administration is openly distancing the US from Israel while giving the impression that Israel is a strategic impediment to the administration's attempts to strengthen its relations with the Arab world, recalling why Israel is the US's most important ally in the Middle East has become a matter of some urgency.


    Much is made of the fact that Israel is a democracy. But we seldom consider why the fact that Israel is a representative democracy matters. The fact that Israel is a democracy means that its alliance with America reflects the will of the Israeli people. As such, it remains constant regardless of who is power in Jerusalem.


    All of the US's other alliances in the Middle East are with authoritarian regimes whose people do not share the pro-American views of their leaders. The death of leaders or other political developments are liable to bring about rapid and dramatic changes in their relations with the US.


    For instance, until 1979, Iran was one of the US's closest strategic allies in the region. Owing to the gap between the Iranian people and their leadership, the Islamic revolution put an end to the US-Iran alliance.


    Egypt flipped from a bitter foe to an ally of the US when Gamal Abdel Nasser died in 1969. Octogenarian President Hosni Mubarak's encroaching death is liable to cause a similar shift in the opposite direction.


    Instability in the Hashemite kingdom in Jordan and the Saudi regime could transform those countries from allies to adversaries.  


    Only Israel, where the government reflects the will of the people is a reliable, permanent US ally.


    America reaps the benefits of its alliance with Israel every day. As the US suffers from chronic intelligence gaps, Israel remains the US's most reliable source for accurate intelligence on the US's enemies in the region.


    Israel is the US's only ally in the Middle East that always fights its own battles. Indeed, Israel has never asked the US for direct military assistance in time of war. Since the US and Israel share the same regional foes, when Israel is called upon to fight its enemies, its successes redound to the US's benefit.

    Every weekday publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

    Here it bears recalling Israel's June 1982 destruction of Syria's Soviet-made anti-aircraft batteries and the Syrian air force. Those stunning Israeli achievements were the first clear demonstration of the absolute superiority of US military technology over Soviet military technology. Many have argued that it was this Israeli demonstration of Soviet technological inferiority that convinced the Reagan administration it was possible to win the Cold War.  


    In both military and non-military spheres, Israeli technological achievements - often developed with US support - are shared with America. The benefits the US has gained from Israeli technological advances in everything from medical equipment to microchips to pilotless aircraft are without peer worldwide.


    Beyond the daily benefits the US enjoys from its close ties with Israel, the US has three fundamental, permanent, vital national security interests in the Middle East. A strong Israel is a prerequisite for securing all of these interests.



    America's three permanent strategic interests in the Middle East are as follows: 

    1 - Ensuring the smooth flow of affordable petroleum products from the region to global consumers through the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal. 

    2 - Preventing the most radical regimes, sub-state and non-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm. 

    3 - Maintaining the US's capacity to project its power to the region.   

    A strong Israel is the best guarantor of all of these interests. Indeed, the stronger Israel is, the more secure these vital American interests are. Three permanent and unique aspects to Israel's regional position dictate this state of affairs.   

    1 - As the first target of the most radical regimes and radical sub-state actors in the region, Israel has a permanent, existential interest in preventing these regimes and sub-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.  


    Israel's 1981 airstrike that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor prevented Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons. Despite US condemnation at the time, the US later acknowledged that the strike was a necessary precondition to the success of Operation Desert Storm ten years later. Richard Cheney - who served as secretary of defense during Operation Desert Storm - has stated that if Iraq had been a nuclear power in 1991, the US would have been hard pressed to eject Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army from Kuwait and so block his regime from asserting control over oil supplies in the Persian Gulf.


    2 - Israel is a non-expansionist state and its neighbors know it. In its 62 year history, Israel has only controlled territory vital for its national security and territory that was legally allotted to it in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate which has never been abrogated or superseded.  


    Israel's strength, which it has used only in self-defense, is inherently non-threatening. Far from destabilizing the region, a strong Israel stabilizes the Middle East by deterring the most radical actors from attacking.


    In 1970, Israel blocked Syria's bid to use the PLO to overthrow the Hashemite regime in Jordan. Israel's threat to attack Syria not only saved the Hashemites then, it has deterred Syria from attempting to overthrow the Jordanian regime ever since.  


    Similarly, Israel's neighbors understand that its purported nuclear arsenal is a weapon of national survival and hence they view it as non-threatening. This is the reason Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal has never spurred a regional nuclear arms race. 

    In stark contrast, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, a regional nuclear arms race will ensue immediately.  

    Although they will never admit it, Israel's non-radical neighbors feel more secure when Israel is strong. On the other hand, the region's most radical regimes and non-state actors will always seek to emasculate Israel.  


    3-- Since as the Jewish state Israel is the regional bogeyman, no Arab state will agree to form a permanent alliance with it. Hence, Israel will never be in a position to join forces with another nation against a third nation.  

    In contrast, the Egyptian-Syrian United Arab Republic of the 1960s was formed to attack Israel. Today, the Syrian-Iranian alliance is an inherently aggressive alliance against Israel and the non-radical Arab states in the region. Recognizing the stabilizing force of a strong Israel, the moderate states of the region prefer for Israel to remain strong.


    From the US's perspective, far from impairing its alliance-making capabilities in the region, by providing military assistance to Israel, America isn't just strengthening the most stabilizing force in the region. It is showing all states and non-state actors in the greater Middle East it is trustworthy.   

    On the other hand, every time the US seeks to attenuate its ties with Israel, it is viewed as an untrustworthy ally by the nations of the Middle East. US hostility towards Israel causes Israel's neighbors to hedge their bets by distancing themselves from the US lest America abandon them to their neighboring adversaries.   

    A strong Israel empowers the relatively moderate actors in the region to stand up to the radical actors in the region because they trust Israel to keep the radicals in check. Today's regional balance of power in which the moderates have the upper hand over the radicals is predicated on a strong Israel. 

    On the other hand, when Israel is weakened the radical forces are emboldened to threaten the status quo. Regional stability is thrown asunder. Wars become more likely. Attacks on oil resources increase. The most radical sub-state actors and regimes are emboldened.


    To the extent that the two-state solution assumes that Israel must contract itself to within the indefensible 1949 ceasefire lines, and allow a hostile Palestinian state allied with terrorist organizations to take power in the areas it vacates, the two-state solution is predicated on making Israel weak and empowering radicals. In light of this, the two-state solution as presently constituted is antithetical to America's most vital strategic interests in the Middle East.


    When we bear in mind the foundations for the US's alliance with Israel, it is obvious that US support for Israel over the years has been the most cost-effective national security investment in post-World War II US history. 

    Every weekday publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.  

    JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.




    'Break the Silence' Speaker: Obama's 'Alice-in-Wonderland' Gov't
    by Hana Levi Julian Obama's Alice in Wonderland Govt -

    A former aide to New York State Governor George Pataki slammed the Obama administration's treatment of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the State of Israel in a prelude to Sunday's “Break the Silence' rally, set to begin at 1:00 p.m. (EDT) outside the Israeli Consulate in Manhattan.

    The event will take place rain or shine, according to organizer Beth Gilinsky, head of the Jewish Action Alliance.

    Among those on the podium will be Jeff Weisenfeld of Bernstein Global Wealth Management, a long-time leader in New York's “mainstream” Jewish community who for years was also active in the National Committee for Jewish Education. Weisenfeld spent four years as chief of staff in the city administration of former Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat before becoming an aide to Governor George Pataki, another Republican.

    Speaking late Friday afternoon in an interview with Israel National News, Weisenfeld called the current diplomatic crisis “the biggest accidental or deliberate miscalculation in American-Israeli relations made by any American president.” He added that the Obama administration's overtures to the Muslim world, and the contrast with its hostility to the State of Israel, had transformed the U.S. executive branch into a “complete Alice-in-Wonderland government. I don't want to make light of it here,” Weisenfeld said with some sarcasm, “but it's like Purim, when Mordechai becomes Haman, and Haman becomes Mordechai.”

    He reserved special criticism for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Special Presidential Adviser David Axelrod, both traditonal Jews in the Obama administration who are among the president's closest aides. “I had positions like theirs, I worked for a governor, a senator... I always made sure that I was representing the Jewish community to the governor, and the governor to them. But there are some who see their power as an end in itself. They don't want to tell the boss when he's wrong. And they are the worst kind of people to have in government,” Weisenfeld said.

    “Islam has evolved backwards, has become more violent than perhaps it was even in its inception, since they did not have the weapons then, that they have today. And you have Emanuel and Axelrod, who have bad judgment, and who do not see the need to fight this moral equivalency.”

    Weisenfeld also noted that most “mainstream” Jewish community organizations did not – and could not – officially sign on to sponsor Sunday's rally for fear of retribution from the Obama administration. “The mainstream groups are about access and response to a direct threat from the White House.

    “The [Jewish] Federations and their beneficiaries and subsidiaries have been warned by Rahm Emanuel to stay away from public criticism of the president on Israel. But unless the weather is horrendous,” he added, “there will be an abundance of “establishment-affiliated” people. Maybe we can wake up this president and pull him back from the abyss.”
    Comment on this story

    Israel Pics

    Political Cartoon
    Sunday, April 25, 2010

    2. Schumer Blasts White House on Israel Policy
    by Hana Levi Julian Schumer Blasts White House

    U.S. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer and a leading Demcoratic Congressman have strongly criticized Obama administration policies against Israel. New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who once worked for Sen. Schumer and is the fiancé of a Muslim aide to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also came out swinging.

    “The appropriate response was a shake of the head – not a temper tantrum," Rep. Weiner said. “Israel is a sovereign nation and an ally, not a punching bag. Enough already.”

    Sen. Schumer told listeners on the Nachum Segal Show in New York that the White House stance on Israel has been “counterproductive”. The senator, who faces elections in the fall, said he had told White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel weeks ago that he would take a public stand if the State Department did not back down from its “terrible” treatment of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

    “This has to stop,” Schumer said he told the White House.

    Schumer said there was an internal “battle” going on in the White House between members of the president's staff. “One side agrees with us, one side doesn't, and we're pushing hard to make sure the right side wins – and if not, we'll have to take it to the next step,” he said.

    “Palestinians don't really believe in a State of Israel,” Schumer noted. “They, unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can live with a two-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there.

    “If the U.S. says certain things and takes certain stands the Palestinians say, 'Why should we negotiate?' [State Department spokesman P.J.] Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations,” Schumer added.

    This was apparently the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for the senior senator, who until now has been one of Obama's closest allies among the Jewish Democrats. Schumer was referring to a briefing in which the State Department spokesman said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words, but through specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process.”

    Up to this point, Schumer had been largely silent about the growing hostility of the Obama administration towards the State of Israel, despite numerous calls by grassroots groups for legislators to stand up and support the Jewish State.

    The contention of the State Department that the so-called “unbreakable bond” between Israel and the U.S. could now depend on the pace of talks with the PA, however, was the red line for Schumer.

    He explained, “That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans – Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew – would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, 'If you don't retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this.”

    White House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded Friday, “We have an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel and the Israeli people. You heard General [James] Jones speak about that earlier in the week. We have said that from the beginning of the administration. I don't think it is a stretch to say we don't agree with what Senator Schumer said.”
    Comment on this story

    3. Diplomatic Coup for PA: Obama Invites Abbas
    by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu Obama Invites Abbas to US

    PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has scored a diplomatic coup with an invitation from U.S. President Barack Obama to visit Washington as media analysts conclude that the president is toning down his criticism of Israel.

    One day after the invitation reportedly was delivered, Abbas urged President Obama on Saturday to impose on Israel the acceptance of a new PA state based on its demands. Meanwhile, U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell met with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Sunday morning, both of whom issued positive statements on the background of no real achievements except to agree to further talks.

    Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the PA said that Abbas will visit Washington next month, but other PA officials said that the trip depends on Israel’s accepting American-backed PA demands.

    President Obama officially has not imposed on Israel the conditions for the establishment of a new Arab state within the current borders of the Jewish State. However, his administration in the past year has gradually adopted most of the PA's demands, bypassed PA commitments to halt incitement and violence against Israel, and demanded that Israel stop building for Jews in united Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

    Israel fears that doing so would be a de facto division of the capital.

    In a speech to Fatah party officials in Ramallah on Saturday, Abbas said, "Mr. President and members of the American administration, since you believe in [an independent PA state], it is your duty to take steps toward a solution and to impose this solution.”

    The U.S. State Department has stated that the United States would not impose its own solution “for the time being.”

    Israel continues to be on the defensive in the PA-American diplomatic maneuvers. Following several weeks of unprecedented public condemnation of Israel by the Obama administration, Mitchell called Sunday morning’s discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu “productive and positive. He added that he will return to the region next week for more discussions.

    Reporters covering the State Department have grown increasingly skeptical of American efforts to bring the PA and Israel together. One journalist sarcastically asked U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley on Friday, “So what grand accomplishments has he [Mitchell] come up with in his meetings so far?”

    Crowley responded with the routine answer that “we [are] trying to move the parties to a point where they agree to proximity talks and to begin to address the substance, the core issues of the process, but there’s still work to do.”

    He added, “If you’re signaling are we expecting a breakthrough through on this visit, probably not.”

    Prime Minister Netanyahu told the weekly Cabinet meeting Sunday morning that Israel has been and continues to be prepared to begin direct talks with the PA immediately. Abbas has held out for acceptance of a halt to building for Jews in parts of Jerusalem where it claims sovereignty. The areas include the Temple Mount area and Western Wall, as well as the neighborhoods of Ramot, French Hill among others.
    Comment on this story

    Chill Zone Videos
    Half-tube for snowboarder out nowwhere
    Book Review
    Jihad and Jew Hatred


    4. Iran Trades Oil for Enriched Uranium from Zimbabwe
    by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu Iran Trades Oil for Uranium

    Iran last month sealed a secret deal to trade oil for enriched uranium from Zimbabwe, which hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week, according to the London Telegraph. The deal was signed last month “away from the media glare” when an Iranian minister visited Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, a source from the African country told the newspaper.

    The oil-for uranium agreement gives Zimbabwe badly needed oil and allows Iran free and unsupervised access to material that can be used to produce a nuclear weapon. Israel, the United States and several Western countries have assumed that Iran is lying in claiming it has no intentions of building a nuclear weapon, which it presumably would try to use to carry out its repeated threat to “wipe Israel off the map.”

    The reported deal with Zimbabwe would violate United Nations sanctions on Iran, which suddenly stated last week that it is willing to let U.N. nuclear watchdogs inspect its nuclear facilities.

    Ahmadinejad last week visited Zimbabwe, whose Muslim population accounts for only one percent of its citizens. He showed support for Mugabe against “expansionist countries’ satanic pressures on the people of Zimbabwe” by allegedly trying to manage the country’s natural resources.

    Mugabe responded, "We remain resolute in defending Zimbabwe's right to exercise its sovereignty over its natural resources. We have equally supported Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear energy as enshrined in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.”

    Zimbabwe is estimated to have nearly half a million tons of uranium, five percent of which can be extracted.

    Ahmadinejad was the first leader outside of Africa to open the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair, where Iran was the biggest foreign exhibitor.
    Comment on this story




    Deja vu — Judith Apter Klinghoffer

    Judith Apter Klinghoffer


    In a recent interview New York Senator Chuck Schumer noted that there is there is a battle going on inside the Obama administration about Israel and added correctly that such a battle is not unusual. The State Department tends to be Arabist while the Defense Department and the military appreciate Israel’s strategic value. The difference is that educated by the most radical leftist (hence anti-Israeli) professors he could find, Barack Obama came to power believing that Israel, like the US, is a bully that needs to be humbled and the way to sell that need to the American people is by convincing it that Israel is a strategic burden even if he hurts US interests in the process. The result is a transformation of US policy towards Israel radical enough to shock as savvy a foreign policy expert as Fareed Zakaria.
    Barack Obama’s close friend (see picture) and surreptitious adviser, Rashid Khalidi, gleefully explains
    ZAKARIA: Rashid, what do you think? Does - does it strike you as a shift for the - the United States to be suggesting that this stalled peace process hurts America's ability to pursue its interests?
    KHALIDI: What they're saying is that Israel is a drag on the United States. It's not a strategic asset, and this is a discursive shift of some significance.
    I don't think they're saying, you know, remove Settlement X from Hilltop Y and the Arab will sing Hosannas to, you know, American power. What they are saying is that Israel is not the strategic asset it was touted as during the Cold War. . . .
    ZAKARIA: Do you see the shift is as dramatic as - as you were just describing? Because what Obama has said and what Petraeus' report says is not Israel is a strategic drag, it's that the lack of progress in the peace process is the problem, you know, that - that we need this process to be energized. Otherwise, it is pointed to by the - by Jihadis, it is used as a recruiting tool. That's a - that's very different from saying Israel is a strategic drag.
    KHALIDI: I think that discursively, if you sit down and parse what they're saying, at - at base, at root, that is essentially the message. . . .
    But is Khalidi right? Is Israel a strategic drag? Not if Defense Secretary Robert Gates is right and at a time the US feels overextended the American security lies in “Helping Others Defend Themselves instead of depending on the US. Gates writes:
    In coming years, the greatest threats to the United States are likely to emanate from states that cannot adequately govern themselves or secure their own territory. The U.S. government must improve its ability to help its partners defend themselves or, if necessary, fight alongside U.S. troops.
    Unlike her neighbors, Israel is a thriving democracy with a first rate military which has repeatedly proved its ability to defend itself under the most trying circumstances. Alexander Haig aptly called Israel America’s “unsinkable battleship in the Middle East.“ Much of the left’s distaste for Israel is directly related the Jewish country’s usefulness as an American strategic ally. The Israeli military may not fight along side the American one as some NATO members do but it has done much, if not more than many NATO members, to enhance US military ability in the post Cold War era.
    Benjamin Netanyahu said as much when he remarked that Israel shared everything with the United States, everything. Danny Reshef writes that the time has come to tell the full story but to do so Israel will have to lift the veil of secrecy surrounding Israeli aid to the US:
    When the US, for its own reasons, went to war against Muslim states, Israel possessed the most extensive knowledge base of the type of fighting involved as a consequence of her experience in Lebanon and in fighting Palestinian terror. Since 2003, the American army in Iraq made extensive use of Israeli technology in using and fortifying vehicles. Operational methods, defensive measures, identification and diffusion of mines as well as training methods were transferred from Israel to the American army and saved the lives of hundreds of American soldiers.
    Israel has in its possession a wide array of correspondence from various American agencies gratefully acknowledging Israel’s contribution and even estimating the number of lives it saved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel helped to militarize and make more precise American drones technology thereby improve the efficacy of its targeted assassinations.
    Indeed, it was the use of Israeli methods which enabled the US to increase significantly its use of drones in the past year because those methods increased the number of enemy casualties while at the same time decreasing civilian casualties. Foreign sources estimate that up to 400 American military personnel went through Israeli training in real time intelligence gathering to identify and pin point military targets.
    A recent Quinnipiac poll
    that Americans may not be aware of all the details of Israeli help to the US but they, if not their current president, understand Israel’s strategic value and, hence, disagrees with the Barack Obama’s policy towards it. Most instructively, those who understand Israel’s value most, support it most. Israel has no better allies than American military families whose lives are on the line. Asked in a recent poll “Do you think the President of the United States should be a strong supporter of Israel or not?” 66% of Americans answer “yes” and 19% “no.” The affirmative number amongst military families is 75%.
    Similarly results can be found when asked whether “President Obama is a strong supporter of Israel or not?“ 34% of Americans believe he is a strong supporter and 42% think he is not. Amongst military families only 32% believe he is a strong supporter of Israel while 49% understand he is not.
    These realities and not, as critics like to insinuate, a powerful Israeli lobby (headed at this moment by a staunch Obama supporter), is responsible for the fact that 2/3 of both houses of Congress sent President Obama a letter suggesting an end to his orchestrated attack on Israel. It is these realities that force the Presidential spokesman to deflect Senator Schumer’s criticisms of Obama’s treatment of Israel by stating that the US has “an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel and the Israeli people." The pertinent question is whether a commitment by an American administration, which believes Israel to be a strategic burden, is credible? The simple answer is no.
    The last time an American president so believed was in 1967. Then, as now, Foggy Bottom argued that American-Israeli relations is a one way street and that Israel is a strategic burden. The president was Lyndon Johnson; and the result was the Six Day War. It was instigated by Egyptian president Gamal Abd’l Nasser in the belief that he was strong enough to beat Israel provided Washington would do nothing to save the Jewish state. He was wrong about Egypt’s military strength but right in doubting American interference.
    Israel stood alone but her victory also helped save the American position in the Middle East at a time when the US was mired in the jungles of Vietnam. The role played then by Egypt is played today by Iran. The role played then by Nasser is played today by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That is the reason, Lebanese journalist Elias Bejjani has already concluded that Iran, not Israel, will start the war Now, unlike then, US forces are stationed in the Middle East and the weapons involved are nuclear. Need I write more?!



    April 12, 2010


    The Second War of Independence

    Elyakim HaEtzni


    Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu avoided attending the international nuclear conference in Washington in order to side step the mine that President Barack Obama had planted there for him and us.


    What was the nature of that mine?


    It’s not just Jerusalem or any particular clause in the document that Obama set before Netanyahu for his signature at their last meeting.  At stake is the independence of the State of Israel.  We are poised at the edge of a Second War of Independence, in which the Quartet, under America ’s leadership, is playing the role of the British High Commissioner.  Alex Fishman, in an article in “Yediot Achronot” from April 9th, details what Obama presented to Netanyahu for his signature:


    n      The withdrawal of the IDF from all the Arab cities of Judea and Samaria and a large proportion of the countryside, precluding all future Israeli military operations in those areas (pretty much the only way of preventing terrorist attacks against Israeli targets);

    n      Allowing the Palestinian Authority to resume operations unhindered in Jerusalem ;

    n      Obligating Israel to cease any present or future building in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem , amounting to the de facto division of the capitol.


    In addition, Obama demanded that Netanyahu continue the building freeze in Judea and Samaria indefinitely and hand over parts of Area C to the Ramallah authorities, changing its status to Area A, which prohibits Israelis from setting foot there.  Obama required Netanyahu to relinquish the northern Dead Sea and parts of the Jordan Valley to enable the PA to develop tourism there.


    All this must take place immediately, before the beginning of negotiations, while the negotiations themselves will determine the final border and, according to the American timetable, will be signed and sealed within two months.


    “What if Israel doesn’t respond to Obama’s plan or only responds partially?,” Fishman asked a senior State Department official. The man replied, “What do you mean we won’t receive full answers?  Where do you think you’re going from here?”


    The American commentator Barry Rubin listed three substantive breaches of agreement by the Obama administration towards Israel :


    1. A breach of the agreement to recognize Israel ’s right to maintain settlement blocks.
    2. A breach of the agreement for Israel to continue building in eastern Jerusalem, given in return for Israel’s acceding to the administration’s demand for a 10-month building freeze in Judea and Samaria.

    1. The intention to publicize an American peace plan that will be forced on the sides if negotiations can’t get started or fail.


    The subject of the third breach completes the process of Israel ’s loss of sovereignty.  First by forcing Netanyahu to create in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria conditions under which the territory is de facto handed over to the Arabs, and then by giving him a few months to play at the farce of negotiations, with the predetermined result of arriving at the American “peace plan.”


    And that’s not all.  There’s the Quartet’s declared intent to base the forced “peace” on foreign armies.  The Americans and Europeans are offering Israel the services of foreign troops as a beneficence in response to Israel ’s complaint that it will no longer be able to defend itself within the borders of the Green Line.  Their answer to this is “security guarantees” backed up with a military presence in the Jordan Valley and along the Green Line.  They tell us that their intention is to defend us from the Arabs while they tell the Arabs that their intention is to defend them from us.  In effect, this military presence will tie our hands and will prevent the Israeli government from taking any independent military action.  From then on, Israel will be a sovereign nation in name only.  In fact, Israel will be a protectorate under international control, led by America .


    Obama masterfully stage-directed the threat of a forced solution upon us.  A meeting was called of past security advisors that all shared a common attribute: hostility to Israel .  The chairman was General Jim Jones who served in Israel and became known as favoring a forced solution with foreign military backing.  Obama named him as his National Security Advisor.  The other participants were Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, and Samuel Berger, men with reputations as fierce opponents of Israel .  Colin Powell – not a great friend but a bit more neutral – also participated.  With Powell as the sole dissenter, they all reached the conclusion that America must adopt a policy of forcing a solution.  The fact of the meeting as well as its conclusions were leaked by the White House to The New York Times and The Washington Post, who were also told that the President himself had dropped in to listen in on the discussion – this to let us know that it wasn’t just another discussion by another committee, but a working meeting sponsored by the President.  In this discussion too, the participants agreed on the need to station American or NATO armed forces along the Jordan River .


    Another figure in Obama’s circle is Samantha Power, who in 2002, answering the question of how she would advise the President about the Arab-Israeli conflict, replied that instead of giving Israel three billions dollars annually, the money should go towards building a Palestinian state and to funding “a huge army” with substantial capabilities for “forced outside intervention”.  Obama appointed this woman as an advisor, a fact that says it all.


    The Arabs caught on to the new rules of the game before Netanyahu, and are acting like they don’t have to do a thing since the Americans are doing it all for them.  We, the Israelis, don’t count, since we’re not considered as having any independent power of decision.  Instead of talking to the puppet, the Arabs prefer to address the one who pulls the strings.


    America has a rich past of coercive foreign interventions.  She had a hand in the coup in Chile that overthrew and killed Salvador Allende, Chile ’s democratically elected president.  America orchestrated the revolt of “Solidarity” in Poland that overthrew the communist regime.  She was involved in the overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in the Ukraine (since then, the Russians overturned things once again), and helped to overthrow Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze in order to set up a pro-American government there.  Her intervention in numerous Latin American countries coined the phrase “banana republic”.


    The Americans call their hostile subversion of other countries’ governments “destabilization,” and the press is indeed reporting that the sources close to the prime minister fear that Obama intends to bring down Netanyahu’s government if he doesn’t accept American dictates.  In economics, this is known as a hostile takeover.


    The hostile Israeli press sides with Obama, of course.  Orly Azoulay, Yediot Achronot’s Washington bureau chief, acts as a “court reporter” for Obama, as if she works for him and not for us.  And Alex Fishman, quoted above, criticizes “the problematic behavior of the Prime Minister in Washington .”  Obama puts Neyanyahu through a hazing in Washington , and instead of defending his prime minister and condemning the one who insulted him – and thereby insulted us, one of Israel ’s prominent reporters throws mud on the “problematic behavior” of the victim.  What was Netanyahu’s sin?  That he didn’t immediately sign the decree of surrender?


    Another example of the slavish and servile language of the Israeli press is the headline of Yediot Achronot from Sept. 17, 2009, which proclaims “The U.S.: Our Patience With Israel is Ending.”  The paper’s editors composed this formulation, as if Israel were a stubborn child getting on the nerves of the teacher.


    Israelis aren’t sufficiently cognizant of the threat of foreign military forces entering the country even though the writing has been on the wall for some time now.  For example, as far back as October 2008, the newspaper A-Shark al-Aussat citing French sources reported that the European Union had offered to deploy a European “peace force” along a future Israeli-Palestinian border.  The Jerusalem Post reported on November 26, 2008 about a recommendation by one of Obama’s most senior advisors to station American or NATO armed forces in the Jordan Valley .  Brzezinski also spoke of an “American line” along the Jordan Valley.*  Aaron Klein reported on January 12 about secret discussions in which the possibility of placing Jordanian forces in Judea and Samaria was weighed.


    Another blow to Israeli sovereignty that Klein publicized (April 8, 2010), is the spy network that George Mitchell has established here.  There is detailed American oversight in eastern Jerusalem and the highest echelons become involved in every tiny building or development project.  Mitchell set up the operation from within the American consulate in Jerusalem that also oversees building in Judea and Samaria , including every tractor that moves in Ma’ale Adumim.  David HaIvri, spokesman of the Samaria Local Council, also noted that the Americans patrol the settlements and stick their noses everywhere.  According to HaIvri, they present themselves as advisors to the consul, “but we know that in fact they’re spies for the Obama administration.”


    In truth, the deterioration leading to the loss of sovereignty, G-d forbid, started back in 2003, when Ariel Sharon’s government obligated itself to the Road Map.  It is the Road Map that the Americans rely on when they accuse Israel of not fulfilling her obligations.


    However, during the government vote on the Road Map, Netanyahu agreed to support it only on condition that 14 “reservations” were appended to it.  The reservations included dismantling the terror organizations, including Hamas, stopping the incitement, confiscating unauthorized arms, and an end to arms smuggling and arms manufacture.  These conditions, to say the least, haven’t been met – suffice it to mention that the Hamas state in Gaza , whose raison d’etre is to conduct a terror war against Israel until the Jewish State is destroyed, comprises almost half the Palestinian population.


    Another reservation stated that as long as the Arabs fail to honor their commitments to put an end to terror and incitement, Israel is also absolved of her commitments (for example, to dismantle outposts and freeze building in the settlements).


    Another reservation said that “final status issues, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria and the status of the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem , will not be dealt with.”  In another reservation, Israel rejected “any reference to international or other decisions,” (referring to the Saudi-Arab Initiative).


    In light of these reservations, Obama’s attack on Israel is groundless since the conditions that would obligate Israel to the Road Map haven’t been met at all.   Since May 23, 2003, the date the government obligated itself to these reservations, we’ve heard nothing about them, as if they vanished into a black hole.  At the time, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told us: you can decide among yourselves whatever you want, but just as no one consulted you when we formed the Quartet or formulated the Road Map, no one’s cares about your “reservations” now.  Today, it appears that she was right: Israel ’s reservations aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.  The Secretary of State’s position was indeed correct: the Road Map was a dictate and no one heard the Israeli poodle’s whimper of protest in the form of “reservations”.


    Here, with the Road Map, was the beginning of our loss of independence: we subjugated ourselves to the Quartet, we agreed to be supervised and judged by their inspectors, we gave them the authority to convene international conventions with the power to declare Palestinian independence, and we accepted the principle that the Arabs have legitimate claims to Jerusalem and regarding the refugees -- all under the umbrella of the Saudi Initiative.  All this, in addition to the obligation to freeze settlements and destroy outposts.


    We waged our first war of independence against the British and the Arab armies when we were very weak – we had a population of 650,000, which is the same as the population of Judea, Samaria , and eastern Jerusalem today.  We had almost no arms, only a nascent army, and no economy -- we were like a newborn baby, naked and vulnerable.  Those conditions are incomparable with our situation now.  And yet, despite our current strength and resources, if we aren’t now willing to undertake the risks and hardships entailed in a second war for our independence, we’re likely to loose everything we achieved in our first war of independence.


    *On April 26th, Channel One’s Ehud Yaari interviewed Palestinian Authority head Abu Mazen on Israeli television.  There, Abu Mazen asserted that he and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had reached an agreement that Israel ’s security concerns would be safeguarded in a final peace accord by stationing NATO troops under American command along the future Israeli-Palestinian border.




    Jewish World Review April 29, 2010 / 15 Iyar 5770
    Republicans, Democrats and Israel
    By Caroline B. Glick
    | Bipartisan support for Israel has been one of the greatest casualties of US President Barack Obama's assault on the Jewish state. Today, as Republican support for Israel reaches new heights, support for Israel has become a minority position among Democrats.
    Consider the numbers. During Operation Cast Lead — eleven days before Obama's inauguration — the House of Representatives passed Resolution 34 siding with Israel against Hamas. The resolution received 390 yea votes, five nay votes and 37 abstentions. Democrats cast four of the nay votes and 29 of the abstentions.
    In November 2009, Congress passed House Resolution 867 condemning the Goldstone report. The resolution urged Obama to disregard its findings which falsely accused Israel of committing war crimes in Cast Lead. 344 Congressman voted for the resolution. 36 voted against it. 52 abstained. Among those voting against, 33 were Democrats. 44 Democrats abstained.
    In February 2010, 54 Congressmen sent a letter to Obama urging him to pressure Israel to open Hamas-ruled Gaza's international borders and accusing Israel of engaging in collective punishment. All of them were Democrats.
    In the midst of the Obama administration's assault on Israel over construction for Jews in Jerusalem, 327 Congressmen signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling for an end to the public attacks on the Israeli government. Of the 102 members that refused to sign the letter, 94 were Democrats.
    These numbers show two things. First, since Obama entered office there has been a 13 point decline overall in the number of Congressmen willing to support Israel. Second, the decrease comes entirely from the Democratic side of the aisle. There the number of members willing to attack Israel has tripled.
    As discouraging as they are, these numbers tell only part of the story. The pro-Israel initiatives the remaining Democrats agree to support today are less meaningful than those they supported before Obama entered office.
    Resolution 34 during Cast Lead was substantive. It unhesitatingly blamed Hamas for the conflict, supported Israel and asserted that future wars will only be averted if Hamas is forced to fundamentally change.
    Last month's letter to Clinton was much more circumscribed. It focused solely on ending the Obama administration's very public assault on Israel and ignored the nature of that assault. At the insistence of the Democrats, the administration was not criticized for its bigoted demand that Jews not be allowed to construct new homes in Jewish neighborhoods in Israel's capital city.
    This week Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat visited Washington. Congressmen Eric Cantor and Peter Roskam — the Republican co-chairmen of the House's Israel caucus — held a public event with Barkat where they voiced strong support for Israel's right to build in Jerusalem without restrictions.
    In contrast, their Democratic counterparts refused to meet publicly with Barkat. They also refused to issue any statements supporting Israel's right to its undivided capital.
    In the midst of administration's assault on Israel's right to Jerusalem last month, Representative Doug Lamborn drafted Resolution 1191 calling for the administration to finally abide by US law and move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Lamborn gathered 18 co-sponsors for the resolution. All of them were Republican.
    Acting on orders from Obama, House and Senate Democrats have tabled the sanctions bills that passed overwhelmingly in both houses. This week Obama asked Congressional Democrats to water down the sanctions bills to permit him to exempt China and Russia. In so doing, Obama exposed the entire push for sanctions as a dangerous, time-consuming joke. No sanctions passed in Congress or at the UN will make Iran reconsider its decision to build a nuclear arsenal.
    This of course has been apparent for some time to anyone paying attention. And recognizing this state of affairs in January, Lamborn and Representative Trent Franks authored a letter to Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging the administration, "to support Israel's sovereign right to take any action it feels compelled to make in its self-defense."
    Their letter was signed by 22 other Congressmen. All were Republican. Then there is Iran. 
    Similarly, since November Representative Louie Gohmert has been working on a resolution supporting Israel's right to attack Iran's nuclear installations. Gohmert's resolution condemns Iran's threat to commit nuclear genocide against Israel and expresses "support for Israel's right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats post by Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time."
    To date, Gohmert has racked up more than forty co-sponsors. All are Republicans.
    Recent opinion polls show that the Republican- Democrat divide on Israel in Congress reflects a growing partisan gap among the general public. A Gallup poll conducted in February showed that whereas 85 percent of Republicans support Israel, (up from 77 percent in February 2009), and 60 percent of Independents support Israel, (up from 49 percent in February 2009), only 48 percent of Democrats support Israel, (down from 52 percent in February 2009).
    To date, both the Israeli government and AIPAC have denied the existence of a partisan divide. This has been due in part to their unwillingness to contend with the new situation. One of Israel's greatest assets in the US has been the fact that support for the Jewish state has always been bipartisan. It is hard to accept that the Democrats are jumping ship.
    AIPAC also has institutional reasons for papering over the erosion in Democratic support for Israel. First, most of its members are Democrats. Indeed, AIPAC's new President Lee Rosenberg was one of Obama's biggest fundraisers.
    Then too, AIPAC is concerned at the prospect of its members abandoning it for J-Street. J-Street, the Jewish pro-Palestinian lobby is strongly supported by the Obama administration.
    According to Congressional sources, AIPAC's desire to hide the partisan divide has caused it to preemptively water down Republican initiatives to gain Democratic support or torpedo Republican proposals that the Democrats would oppose. For instance, an AIPAC lobbyist demanded that Gohmert abandon his efforts to advance his resolution on Iran. Sources close to the story say the AIPAC lobbyist told Gohmert that AIPAC opposes all Iran initiatives that go beyond support for sanctions.
    And now of course, as Obama makes a mockery of AIPAC's sanctions drive by watering them down to nothingness, AIPAC's sanctions-only strategy lies in ruins. But again in the interest of promoting the fiction of bipartisan support for Israel, AIPAC can be expected to pretend this has not happened.
    And many prominent Republican Congressmen are loath to call their bluff. Like the Israeli government itself, Republican House members express deep concern that blowing the lid off the Democrats will weaken Israel. As one member put it, "I don't want to encourage the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to attack Israel by exposing that the Democrats don't support Israel."
    While this argument has its merits, the fact is that many Democrats remain staunch supporters of Israel. Representatives like Shelley Berkley, Nita Lowey, Steve Israel, Anthony Weiner, Jim Costa and many others have not taken stronger stands in support Israel because thanks to AIPAC, they haven't been challenged to do so. If going into the November midterm elections House Republicans were to initiate an aggressively pro-Israel agenda as members like Lamborn, Franks, Gohmert, Cantor, Roskam, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and others are already doing, they would compel Democratic members to join them or risk being criticized for abandoning Israel by their Republican opponents in November's elections.
    And that's the thing of it. While under Obama, bipartisan support for Israel has eroded, popular support for Israel has grown. Indeed polls show a direct correlation between Democratic abandonment of Israel and popular abandonment of the Democrats. What this means is that the partisan divide on Israel is a good election issue for Republicans.
    If as projected Republicans retake control over the House of Representatives in November, they will be in a position to limit Obama's ability to adopt policies that weaken Israel. And due to the widespread expectation that Republicans will in fact take over the House, if the Republicans set out clear policy lines on Israel today, their declared policies will immediately impact Obama's maneuver room on Israel. So too, a clear Republican policy on Israel will motivate pro-Israel Democrats to more stridently distance themselves from Obama on issues related to Israel.
    Take the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's threat that he will unilaterally declare Palestinian independence in August 2011. To date, Obama has refused to say if he will recognize such a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Fearing that he may recognize such a state, Israel has gone out of its way to appease Obama.
    If House Republicans and Republican House candidates were to collectively pledge to cut off US funding for the PA in the aftermath of such a declaration, they could neutralize the threat. And if they pledged not to fund a US embassy in such a Palestinian state, they would make it impossible for Obama to continue holding his decision over Israel's head.
    As for Iran, if Republicans win the House, they will be in a position to use omnibus budgetary bills to force the administration to provide Israel with the military equipment necessary to win a war against Iran and its allies. This would limit Obama's capacity to threaten Israel with an arms embargo in the increasingly likely event that the Iranian axis attacks the Jewish state.
    In some House races, Democratic abandonment of Israel is already a key issue. For instance, in Illinois, the race between Republican challenger Joel Pollak and incumbent Democrat Jan Schakowsky has been dominated by Schakowsky's close ties to J-Street and tepid support for Israel. And recent polling data indicate that once a long-shot candidate, Pollak is steadily closing in on Schakowsky's lead.
    Exposing the Democrats' abandonment of Israel will be an unpleasant affair. But it won't add to the dangers arrayed against Israel. Israel's enemies are already aware of Obama's animus towards the Jewish state. Demonstrating that the Democrats on Capitol Hill are following his lead on Israel will not add or detract from Iran's willingness to attack Israel either directly or through its Arab proxies, or both.
    Moreover, forcing Democrats to account for their behavior will have a salutary long-term effect on their party and on the US as a whole. Support for Israel is a benchmark for support for US allies generally. Obama's abandonment of Israel has gone hand in hand with the cold shoulder he has given Colombia, Honduras, Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic, Japan, South Korea and other key US allies worldwide. In the long-term, it will be catastrophic if one of the US's two political parties maintains this strategically disastrous policy.
    By using support for Israel as a wedge issue in the upcoming elections Republicans will do more than simply constrain Obama's ability to harm the Jewish state. They will be setting a course for a Democratic return to strategic sanity in the years to come. And nothing will guarantee the return of bipartisan support for Israel more effectively and securely than that.

    Every weekday publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
    JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.