[Alternative title: 'Netanyahu States The Obvious']
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said upon arriving in the United States on Monday that for peace in the Middle East to take hold, the Palestinians must demonstrate their desire to reach a solution.
"The tango in the Middle East needs at least three," Netanyahu said. "For years there have been two -- Israel and the US. Now it needs to be seen if the Palestinians are also present. In any case, in order for us to have an agreement, we must uphold our vital interests. I have proven that I do so, in the face of all pressures and all the turmoil, and I will continue to do so here as well."
America’s ability to “manage the international fallout is going to be limited” if Israel does not strike a peace deal with the Palestinians and there is “continued aggressive settlement construction,” US President Barack Obama said in an interview published on the eve of hisMonday meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Washington’s inability to manage this fallout will have consequences, Obama said in the interview with Bloomberg’sJeffrey Goldberg that appeared Sunday.
“In today’s world, where power is much more diffuse, where the threats that any state or peoples face can come from non-state actors and asymmetrical threats, and where international cooperation is needed in order to deal with those threats, the absence of international goodwill makes you less safe,” Obama said. “The condemnation of the international community can translate into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key security interests. It means reduced influence for us, the United States, in issues that are of interest to Israel. It’s survivable, but it is not preferable.”
Blame for the morass in the Middle East peace process lies squarely with the Palestinians, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said late Sunday, hours after US President Barack Obama was quoted saying that Washington would be hard-pressed to defend Israel should talks fail.
Netanyahu made the remarks upon landing in Washington, where he was to meet Monday with Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, who is managing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Netanyahu and Kerry will also speak at the conference of the AIPAC pro-Israel lobby in the capital.
“In any case, in order for us to have an agreement, we must uphold our vital interests. I have proven that I do so, in the face of all pressures and all the turmoil, and I will continue to do so here as well,” he said.
Obama also cautioned that Israel can expect to face international isolation and possible sanctions from countries and companies across the world if Netanyahu fails to endorse a framework agreement with the Palestinians and engages in more settlement building.
“If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction — and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time — if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited,” Obama said.
Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz, who accompanied Netanyahu to the US, was more blunt in rebuffing Obama’s comments.
“We want to promote a political settlement; however, are justifiably concerned about our national security — there is no reason to pressure Israel. We are only caring for Israel’s most fundamental needs,” he said.
In his sharpest jab yet at Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama blasted the Israeli leader as the sole obstacle to a peace agreement, while lauding Mahmoud Abbas as a fully committed peace partner.
In an interview with Bloomberg ahead of their White House summit, Obama made it clear that the entire responsibility to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rests with Netanyahu – and only with Netanyahu.
Which leaves one wondering why Obama would resort to brutal tactics that are bound to throw the relationship into a deep freeze. Obama may have had differences with other national leaders, but he never came out swinging with such gusto. Why this unforgivable treatment of Bibi?
And why in the world at the very start of their summit? If Obama really wanted to make some progress in the peace process, why indeed would he attack Bibi so savagely just before they sat down for their D.C. summit?
Is it because Obama has basically given up on genuine peacemaking and just wanted to blast Netanyahu one more time and lay all the guilt on him? Perhaps. The two men never developed the right chemistry. And Obama, in his innermost feelings, simply may have seen one more opportunity to tarnish Netanyahu. Obama’s latest blast recalled a comment he made even before his first inaugural -- to wit, while he was a staunch supporter of Israel, this didn’t mean that he would genuflect to every position of the Likud, Bibi’s political party.
Or was this a case where Obama just wanted to flex his muscles and teachBibi a lesson, with the aim of creating a deep rift within Israel’s politicallandscape? Signaling Israel to find another leader more in tune with U.S. interests? If so, the president was badly mistaken. Israelis, of all people, don’t like to be bullied.
In either case, now, on top of all that, Obama throws more salt in the wound by depicting Abbas in the most roseate hues – a paragon for peace, perfectly trustworthy. If that isn’t a sick joke, when everyone knows that Abbas has rejected each and every compromise to achieve Palestinian statehood and keeps fueling a vicious incitement campaign against the Jewish state, it's hard to say qualifies as one.
Whatever his motive, Obama violated all basic diplomatic rules in so needlessly and heedlessly slamming Bibi -- the kind of diplomacy that Obama seemed to favor over all other approaches.
Magical thinkers like Obama spend years persuading themselves that reality isn’t what it obviously is: That there are no aggressive imperial ideologies in the world, and that mere wishful thinking will create love and peace. For anyone who sees the world with open eyes, those ideas are too delusional to argue with. Every time you try to talk sense to a deluded liberal you will fail, because they aren’t open to facts or logic. Psychiatrists know from daily experience that you can’t argue people out of fixed delusions.
Obama has systematically dismantled Western and U.S. defenses, stabbed allies like Egypt’s Mubarak in the back, invaded Libya without a shred of justification, and backed murderous reactionary gangsters in Syria, Libya, Iran, and Egypt. Our president betrayed U.S. personnel in Benghazi, and purged our top military leaders. Soon he will turn over Iraq to Iran, and Afghanistan to the Taliban. When, through our bottomless folly, Iran gets the bomb, it will control both sides of the Persian Gulf, and run the Middle East through Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon.
Putin is establishing a naval presence in Venezuela and Cuba. He already has a major naval base in Syria. He wants to control Middle Eastern oil, and by making Iran and Saudi Arabia dependent on him, he might be able to do it.
Obama is cognitively rigid: He can’t change his mind in the face of facts. Therefore the Western world acts like a milling crowd on the Exxon Valdez right before the ship strikes the reef. We can scream and yell at the captain, but he has both forefingers firmly stuck in his ears. If anything goes wrong, the White House spins lies and excuses. Obama never takes responsibility, and his mendacious media are too afraid to ask questions.
The worst news is that our people have become infantile. Americans just voted themselves free medical care for life, and now they are surprised because the whole wishful farce is starting to break down. This is not how adults think. It is infantile.
The infantilized voter is not just an American phenomenon. Just take a look at the British “news” media. The BBC was just exposed for protecting a high-level compulsive child-abuser network, led by star Jimmy Savile, for a period of decades. Such profound and long-lasting corruption cannot happen in a normal, decent organization -- somebody would have called the cops. But the BBC waited for the criminals to die or retire before making its belated confession.
Europe’s ruling class is no longer responsible to the voters; they have complete job security just like the U.S. Senate. As a result, Europe’s capitals are now full of Pakistani radicals straight from the badlands, controlling entire neighborhoods with Shari’ah law. Western Europe is committing suicide, and Vladimir Putin knows it.
Ordinary Europeans are just as ignorant, confused and childlike as Americans. They are easily swayed by monopoly propaganda run by political media cults. In England the Conservative Party is just as Eurosocialist as Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The EU Parliament has no law-making power at all. It’s a pure front for the all-powerful bureaucracy.
Which makes Putin one of a small number of serious political leaders in the world.
Obama is probably the least serious.
Let’s all pray for a happy ending.
President Obama spoke on the phone with Russian President Vladimir Putinfor 90 minutes on Saturday following the “uncontested arrival” of Russian tanks in Ukraine.
The White House released a photo of that phone call, with Obama decked out in rugged denim.
The Reagan-esque image is an almost comically effort by the White House to portray a tough looking Obama to the American people, a likely reaction to the pointed criticism over his timid response to Putin’s aggression.
Twitter users tweeted the photo and their thoughts of Obama’s theatrics. The commentary is hilarious, despite the seriousness of the matter.
During his 90-minute phone conversation with President Obama on Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin hinted that Russian military intervention in Ukraine could go beyond Crimea, the region now under effectively occupied by Russia.
That’s according to the Kremlin’s brief account of the phone call, initiated by Obama.
“Vladimir Putin stressed that in case of any further spread of violence to Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, Russia retains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population of those areas,” it said.
Roughly one-third of Ukraine as a whole is considered Russia-leaning, an area about ten times bigger than Crimea. Those are the regions where a majority voted for the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovich – now former president – in the 2010 election, and where most first-language Russian speakers live.
Putin also mentioned eastern Ukraine beyond Crimea in a phone conversation with U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon.
“Vladimir Putin noted that in case of any escalation of violence against the Russian-speaking population of the eastern regions of Ukraine and Crimea, Russia would not be able to stay away and would resort to whatever measures are necessary in compliance with international law,” his office said in a statement.
Since February the 12th, the Day of the Youth, a holiday in Venezuela, the country has been in chaos. Hundreds of thousands of students were followed in the next days by millions of peaceful protesters who demand an end to the dictatorial reign of Marxist terror, betrayal of the country to Cuba and total escalation of violence and corruption in Venezuela, in the largest demonstrations in the history of the country.
Unfortunately, these demonstrators were received by random rifle and even machine gun shots. Thugs from the government, with Cuban agents among them, just arrive in motorcycles and start shooting at the crowds. In Youtube, we can see soldiers shooting at random cars, apartment buildings and even the people who are filming with their phones, in situations that remind us of Syria and Libya. Meanwhile, Russian made Sukhoi jet fighters fly low over the crowds, in order to terrify people.
The mains thugs are the hundreds-of-thousands-strong popular militias of the government, much like Soviet squads with Russian rifles in their hands (Chavez bought billions of dollars in guns from Russia) free to instill terror in the adversaries of the regime. The government talks about 6 or 7 dead, but the reality must be much, much worse. The students under arrest are being tortured with electricity and forced to perform oral sex with the guards. Heart breaking pictures and movies are shared everyday in the internet.
Maduro used to be a bus driver with little expression before being sent to Cuba. There he was trained in political sabotage and strategies for unions mobilization. This thug gained the confidence of Chavez and eventually was appointed to be his successor, in a close (2000 votes of difference) election that was marked by more than 1000 cases of documented frauds and complete monopoly of communication by the government. Now it has been revealed that Maduro may not even be Venezuelan, but was born in Colombia, in Ocaña, a city near the border.
Venezuela has the second largest oil reserves in the world and used to be the main exporter of oil to the US. Chavez and his minion have destroyed this fabulously rich country. Official inflation is 56%, but real one is probably much higher. 28% of basic staples are missing from the market shelves, including chicken, sugar and even toilet paper, which had to be imported in a hurry and became a source of jokes. Maduro even ordered the invasion of the factory. Since there are no dollars to import parts and raw materials, factories such as Toyota and GM have closed doors. Recently, we have seen people in line, like in Soviet times, being stamped with a queue number in the arm in order to buy food.
Last November, Maduro became a de-facto dictator by assuming power to rule by decrees. He has complete control over the press, since he keeps a tight rein on paper and only approves the purchase of printing paper for political allies. The only opposition TV network, Globovision, was forced into bankruptcy and sold.
It is amazing that the US has just forgotten about a continent just south of the border, which is ganging up together with US haters Russia and China to implement a Marxist revolution, while America is spending trillions in the other side of the world in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The explanation is that Latin America is being prepared to be one of the ten regions in the coming New World Order.
Unfortunately, in contrast with the moderate integration of the European Union or NAFTA, the integration of Latin America is being done under the red flag of Marxism, so the continent will remain poor and underdeveloped forever. People in the region will not accept this lightly, and much blood will flow. Citizens in Venezuela and the neighbor countries just want a future to their kids, away from the boots of Cuban soldiers. It is not much to ask for.
Parents with radical political beliefs should have their children taken by the state, according to London Mayor Boris Johnson, a chilling prospect given that parents who support major political parties like UKIP are already being targeted by social services.
Writing in his weekly column, Johnson said that, “The law should obviously treat radicalisation as a form of child abuse.”
While the idea is being promoted under the ostensibly reasonable justification that it will stop children being turned into “potential killers or suicide bombers,” Johnson said it could also be applied under more vague circumstances, such as if the child is taught to be “full of hate.”
The Mayor said that children whose parents are supporters of the British National Party, a right-wing organization that vehemently opposes immigration, may be taken into care in “extreme” circumstances.
However, children are already being seized from their parents under much less extreme circumstances.
In 2012, a couple had their foster children removed from their care by a local government council because they were members of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which is the third largest political party in the United Kingdom and is expected to win the upcoming European Parliamentary elections.
Social workers told the parents, who had an exemplary record for fostering children, that the kids had been taken due to them belonging to a “racist party”. UKIP was deemed to be “racist” by the council because it opposes the “active promotion of multiculturalism.”
If the same standard is applied across the pond, many conservatives and libertarians face having their children seized since the Department of Homeland Security now characterizes “liberty lovers” as extremistsand puts them in the same bracket as violent terrorists.
Johnson’s editorial arrives just weeks after a law was passed in Scotland that designates a state minder to every child in the country up to the age of 18, a move described by the Christian Institute as a, “dreadful extension of the state’s tentacles into family life.”
The law basically treats every parent as a potential child abuser and tasks government snoops with the responsibility of keeping tabs on kids in a program that sounds like it was ripped straight from the pages of a dystopian novel like Brave New World.
No comments:
Post a Comment