Saturday, June 24, 2017


by -

Barack Obama, along with key American allies, have tacitly given the go-ahead for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and have crippling sanctions lifted.

Predictably, Israeli leaders are outraged–calling it a horrible mistake that lets Iran run amok, as it continues to build its nuclear capabilities.

“Iran is going to receive a sure path to nuclear weapons,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “Many of the restrictions that were supposed to prevent it from getting there will be lifted.”

Netanyahu’s education minister, Naftali Bennett, had even stronger words: “Today, a terrorist nuclear superpower is born, and it will go down as one of the darkest days in world history.”

Israeli leaders, especially Netanyahu, have long railed against what they saw as insufficient opposition to the regime in Iran, which often threatens to annihilate the Jewish state. They now fear that, with the sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy coming to an end, Iran will have more cash at its disposal than ever before–and will work hard to make sure that money furthers their anti-Israel, terrorist aims.

U.S. leaders from inside the Obama White House–which has had a notoriously frosty relationship with Netanyahu–have dismissed Israel’s criticism as overblown.

Secretary of State John Kerry, in an interview with NBC, accused Netanyahu of “making comments that are way over the top.”

“This is under attack by people who don’t really know the terms of the agreement,” Kerry added.

Already, bipartisan opposition in Congress is brewing–but it might not matter.

Due to a law passed earlier this year regarding Obama’s Iran negotiations, Congress can only vote to reject the treaty, not vote to affirm it.

That means, if Congress actively rejects the treaty, Obama can simply veto them–and, since overturning a veto requires huge majorities of both houses (that the opposition doesn’t quite have), it looks like the Iran deal will wind up as the final agreement.

Meanwhile, Obama himself called Netanyahu to tell him that the Iran deal doesn’t change America’s commitment to protect Israel–but, given the relationship between the two in the past, there’s no telling whether Netanyahu will believe Obama’s assurances.

by -

Judy Mozes, an Israeli media personality and the wife of Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom, is under fire for a racial joke about President Barack Obama.

And now? The Left is using it as an excuse to call for a boycott of their least favorite American ally, Israel.

“Do [you] know what Obama Coffee is?” Mozes joked over Twitter. “Black and weak.”

Mozes deleted the Tweet almost immediately–although not fast enough; liberal news site, Vox, managed to capture a screenshot before she did–and she apologized profusely for posting the joke.

Of course, the liberal Left isn’t so forgiving. And now, they’re using it as an excuse to boycott Israel.

The liberal Twittersphere launched into tirade after tirade, with some users even calling to cut Israeli defense funding–at a time when they face unprecedented threats from groups like ISIS and nations like Iran, who would like nothing more than to see Israel annihilated from the planet.

Mozes’s off-color joke comes at a time when Israeli-American relationships are increasingly strained.

Last year, a senior Obama administration allegedly called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “chickens**t” behind closed doors–in a remark that quickly went viral. The comment was a response to Netanyahu, who was snubbed by Obama during an upcoming visit, when he decided to address Congress anyway–even without Obama’s blessing.

Earlier this year, Obama even was rumored to try to do everything he could to make sure Netanyahu lost re-election. Netanyahu wound up winning by far more votes than predicted–and Obama was, allegedly, livid that the Israeli people would make such a decision to stick with Netanyahu’s conservative Likud Party, rather than a more conciliatory (and pro-Palestine) liberal parties.

To say that Obama and Netanyahu have had a rocky relationship is, of course, an understatement.

Netanyahu will, quite likely, continue to hold office even after Obama is gone. But, for many on the Left, the damage to Israel’s reputation is already done.

by -

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s surprise election victory puts Hillary Clinton in a tough spot–and could even sink her presidential campaign in 2016.

Right now, Hillary is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to Israel.

Netanyahu and President Barack Obama have had a historically frosty relationship, with a whopping 93% of voters in Israel’s ruling Likud Party distrusting Obama, and feeling that he would sign a deal with Iran that runs counter to Israel’s security.

Obama, for his part, has been heavily critical of Netanyahu–with one White House official even caught referring to the Israeli leader as “chicken s**t.” He also famously ignored an impassioned and high-profile speech that Netanyahu recently gave to Congress about Israeli security issues.

If Hillary follows in Obama’s footsteps on Israel, she risks alienating big money from Jewish donors, whom she’ll need to launch and fund her campaign.

These donors–and their votes–could defect to a more pro-Israeli candidate in the Democratic primaries or even throw their support to the Republican Party, which would be a financial disaster to Democrats, who have long depended on that wealthy demographic.

But, on the flip side, she’ll be under increased pressure to criticize Netanyahu to satisfy a Democratic Party that’s grown increasingly anti-Israel over the past few years.

Specifically if Hillary Clinton gets a challenger from the Left, like former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley or Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, she would need to quickly shore up her liberal credentials, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Though Hillary has worked closely with Netanyahu for years, and describes her relationship with him as “very good,” she also admits that she was also the “designated yeller.” And, while in her 2014 memoir Hard Choices she describes many foreign leaders in flattering terms, she brusquely describes Netanyahu as a “complicated figure.” Bill Clinton, too, was caught on a hot microphone last summer saying that Netanyahu was “not the guy” to bring peace to the Middle East.

Netanyahu also holds some animosity towards the Clintons, regretting a 1999 treaty signed with Bill Clinton that gave some Israeli land to Palestinian rebels.

Despite her mixed relationship with Netanyahu, Hillary will be forced to clarify her position on Israel–and make a key choice whether to cater to wealthy Jewish donors or the growing liberal grassroots.

by -

After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unexpected–and decisive–election win on Tuesday, Barack Obama is ready to do something drastic. He’s planning to sidestep Israel altogether, and call for the U.N. to pass a resolution that would force Israel into peace with the Palestinian Authority.

According to sources within the Obama Administration, the White House is now considering supporting a U.N. resolution that would “include Israel’s 1967 borders with Palestine and mutually agreed swaps of territory.”

Returning to Israel’s pre-1967 borders have been the source of contention for the last several decades.

After a number of neighboring Arab nations declared war on Israel in what is called the Six-Day War, Israel invaded and occupied land in the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip–which it now claims is necessary to keep as a buffer zone from future attacks. With its pre-1967 borders, parts of Israel were as narrow as 9 miles wide.

Previously, the United States–as Israel’s strongest ally–has blocked the U.N. from passing resolutions unfavorable to Israel. But, as relations have reached historic strain under Barack Obama, the tide is beginning to shift.

Obama’s new antipathy towards Israel comes from what he calls Netanyahu’s “divisive” re-election campaign.

In the last days of his campaign, Netanyahu–a member of Israel’s conservative Likud Party–publicly abandoned his commitment to negotiate a Palestinian state, and vowed to continue building Israeli settlements on occupied territory.

Netanyahu’s new government will likely be made up of several conservative parties, most of which refuse to give concessions to Palestinian leaders.

Despite losing the support of the Obama Administration, Israel remains committed to retaining their territory and their nation, rather than turn it over to the Palestinian Authority–who is governed by terrorist group, Hamas, and has refused to recognize Israel.

Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., put it more succinctly: “If the U.N. is so concerned about the future of the Palestinian people, it should be asking . . . why Hamas uses the Palestinian people as human shields.”


Comey Deleted

Judicial Watch today announced it sent Acting FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe a warning letter concerning the FBI’s legal responsibility under the Federal Records...