Barack Obama: A Bill of Indictmen

Obama - shredding the Constitution

By Alan Caruba

Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All those with business before the court of public opinion will draw near. A bill of indictment has been issued for Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America. It is a call for justice from the people of the United States who allege that he is engaged in the destruction of their nation.

For the court’s consideration, it is alleged:

That he secured the office of President by falsely stating he is a natural born citizen of the United States without providing irrefutable documentation and witnesses thereof,

That he associated with persons known and unknown to hold anti-American views antithetical to the conduct of his office, to include a convicted felon, an unrepentant former domestic terrorist, among too many others to innumerate,

That he has created an unaccountable level of governmental policy-making with the largest expansion of presidential advisors, “czars”, in the history of the executive branch, 

That, while in his first six months, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia and Emperor of Japan, an act that contradicts the primacy of the office of the U.S. presidency,

That, in contradiction to his sworn duty to protect the nation, he announced the termination of the U.S. space defense system the day after North Korea launched an ICBM,

That he ordered the release of memos regarding the interrogation of terrorists interned in U.S. facilities at Guantanamo, making known to the Islamist enemies of the nation the manner of their interrogation,

That he appointed as Secretary of Homeland Security, an individual who ordered that the word “terrorism” be replaced by the term, “man made disasters,”

That, during his first six months in office, he doubled the U.S. national debt, currently at an unsustainable level, threatening the value of the U.S. dollar,

That he signed into law a “stimulus” bill, the bulk of whose funds were allocated to government employee unions under the guise of generating millions of new jobs in the private sector,

That he signed into law a “Troubled Asset Relief Program” that, contrary to the Constitution, promoted short term private benefit, rather than the general welfare, while evading the constitutional requirement of equal protection, saving some businesses while letting others expire, 

That he by-passed the established legal process of bankruptcy to seize control of General Motors and Chrysler auto manufacturers, benefiting unions to the loss of creditors,

That, in collusion with the majority leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate, he initiated and engineered the passage of legislation that nationalized the healthcare industry despite overwhelming opposition by the American People,

That he has participated in national and international conferences to advocate the discredited theory of global warming and continues to advance Cap-and-Trade legislation based on it; a massive tax on energy use that will undermine the recovery of the economy,

That he has failed to protect the United States by failing to secure its southern border with Mexico and is threatening to take legal action against Arizona, a sovereign State that has passed legislation in lieu of that failure,

That he has consistently advocated “global government” over the sovereignty of the United States,

That he declared his intention to “bankrupt” the coal industry, responsible for one half of the electricity generated to serve the needs of Americans,

That he failed to take immediate and effective action to deter widespread ecological and economic damage to States bordering the Gulf of Mexico following an accident on a BP deepwater oil rig, including a “moratorium” on oil drilling that threw thousands out of work,

That he continues to advocate “a clean energy future” when such energy, solar and wind, exist only because of government subsidies and mandates, are a dangerously unpredictable source of electricity, and produce less than three percent of the electricity generated nationwide,

That two private investigators have asserted he is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in that State and that the number was issued between 1977 and 1979. Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins in Oahu, Hawaii,

And, for these and other hidden records regarding his birth, his overseas travel to Pakistan, college records, medical records, and other means of verifying a legitimate claim to hold the office of the President,

We, the People of the United States of America demand that impeachment proceedings be initiated or that cases pending before the courts be adjudicated at the earliest possible time to prevent further damage to the economy and security of the nation.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Obama’s Pollyannaish, ‘Buy the World a Coke’ Foreign Policy

NewsRealBlog

2010 April 11

by Jeff Hedgpeth

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Obama doctrine is, “I’m not Bush so please love us.” 


The recent brouhaha over comments made by Afghan President Hamid Karzai has created a schism in the Obama Administration over the posture America should take towards the controversial leader going forward. Initially the Administration tried a hard line towards Karzai, and referred to his remarks as “troubling,” but the intransigence of the Afghan leader has lead to a change in strategy.

On “Face the Nation” Sunday Bob Schieffer reported,

“…the Administration has decided now to see if being nicer to Karzai will be more productive.”

The Obama Administration trotted out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the Sunday shows to signal a marked change in the American demeanor towards Karzai. The new approach is to signal our support and understanding for the troubled leader.

Here we have yet another tenet of the Obama doctrine. It has become sacrosanct with this Administration to fall back, not on strength, but on some naive assumption that we can somehow change the world through an Obama charm offensive.

How to handle Karzai is a dilemma not easily solved, but I think we can be reasonably certain that Obama is not going to tame obstreperous heads of state by buying the world a Coke and hoping they will join hands on a hilltop and sing about peace and harmony.

On "Birthers," Heed "Radio Patriot," Not Glenn Beck

On "Birthers," Heed "Radio Patriot," Not Glenn Beck

The logical conclusion is that there is SOMETHING on the document that Obama does not want to share with the American people. Even the Beckster should realize that!

Glenn Beck is an Obama critic, but he's not a "birther" and ridicules "birthers" as the dumbest of the dumb and even helpful to Obama. "Radio Patriot" Andrea Shea King, a "birther," knows better.

World Net Daily's Drew Zahn, "Glenn Beck on birther issue: 'Dumbest thing I've ever heard'" (January 4, 2009) (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120992):

"On the air today, popular radio host Glenn Beck mocked 'birthers' and claimed there is a concerted campaign to get those questioning Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility onto the airwaves – a strategy Beck said would actually benefit Obama.

"'There's always games being played behind the scenes at a talk radio show,' Beck said. 'Rush has always called them seminar callers. But instead of being coy with the seminar callers or with you, I'm just going to expose the game that is going on. Today there is a concerted effort on all radio stations to get birthers on the air.'

"'I have to tell you, are you working for the Barack Obama administration?' Beck scoffed. 'I mean, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.'"

It's Beck's scoffing that's dumb.

This morning on "Fox & Friends" there was a report that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt really died of a brain tumor, not a stroke, and his brain tumor was concealed for political purposes.

What strikes some (or even most) as unbelievable (or "dumb") may be true.

Beck calls radical Obamaton and ACORN 8 leader his "Rosa Parks," so his own capacity for "dumbness" is not in doubt.

Beck just proved that again this year by joining the big dog at Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, in mocking the "birthers."

I don't know where Obama was born, but I believe that "birthers" are right to respect the United States Constitution and demand proof that Obama is eligible to be President and the burden of proof on that issue belongs on Obama.

In 2008 John McCain quickly produced his birth certificate, but Obama still has not done so.

Obama's refusal to produce his birth certificate is NOT proof that he was born in Kenya, but it IS a strong sign that he's hiding SOMETHING.

Zahn:

"The ongoing dialogue then spun off into ridicule as Beck caricatured those who question the sitting president's eligibility with straw-man arguments reminiscent of jibes made by Obama's apologists in other news outlets.

"Beck defined birthers as people who believe Obama was born in Kenya or other foreign country, was raised as a Manchurian candidate and somehow brainwashed Hillary Clinton into not exposing his fraud. According to Beck's running joke, birthers believe someone – maybe Obama's KGB 'control' – preemptively placed Obama's birth announcement in 1961 Hawaiian newspapers with a 'roadmap' of getting an African man into office.

"As for Obama producing a long-form birth certificate to actually prove his place of birth, Beck questioned, 'Why do that when these people ["birthers"] are so discrediting themselves?'"

But, as Zahn put it: "The 'certification of live birth' posted online and widely touted as 'Obama's birth certificate' does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same 'short-form' document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true 'long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny."

Scrutiny of Obama (in sharp contrast to Sarah Palin) is something that the liberal media establishment avoided and Fox News did not do nearly well enough.

Perhaps Beck and O'Reilly mock the "birthers" because they too would be embarrassed if the true "long form" birth certificate were made public and contained any significant information that would bear on either Obama's eligibility or suitability to be President of the United States. (It was not until long after Obama was inaugurated that those two Fox News hosts focused on The New York Times killing an Obama/ACORN expose on October 21, 2008, even though I reported it on the Internet the next day.)

Zahn:

"The radio host further argued that by distracting the public from actionable issues, 'birthers' have become 'a dream come true' for Obama, an ideal situation akin to the fantasies of adolescent boys after Hollywood bombshells.

"'Barack Obama looks at the birthers as Megan Fox,' Beck said, referring to the star and sex symbol of the popular 'Transformers' films."

Message to Beck: As a faithful student of community organizer Saul Alinsky, Obama has followed his rules for radicals. Like a faithful Alinskyite, you too ridicule the "birthers." But ridicule is not a substitute for Obama's original birth certificate.

Zahn rightly rebutted Beck:

"'Birthers'...reflect a far greater diversity of opinion than is assumed by Beck's characterization. For example, while the term has been applied to anyone questioning Obama's eligibility to serve as president under the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' clause, many 'birthers' don't doubt Obama's Hawaiian birth, but instead take issue with his father's foreign citizenship.

"While other top radio hosts, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin and Lou Dobbs, have all said unequivocally and publicly that the Obama eligibility issue is legitimate and worthy, a few – including Beck and fellow Fox TV host Bill O'Reilly – have taken the position that the issue is, in O'Reilly's words, 'bogus.' Both Beck and O'Reilly cite the contemporaneous appearance of birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers as prima facie evidence Obama was born in Hawaii and 'birthers' are conspiracy nuts.

"However, what neither talk host realizes is that newspaper birth announcements are not placed by parents phoning their local paper with the good news that they had a child. Rather, as WND has reported based on interviews with the two Hawaii papers involved, the Obama newspaper birth announcements stemmed from information automatically sent to the papers by Hawaii's Department of Health upon the state's issuance of a 'Certification of Live Birth,' which, as WND has also reported, is considered insufficient on its own to positively document the president's birthplace.

"Many people remain unaware that a child does not even have to be born in Hawaii to receive a 'Certification of Live Birth – that's the 'short form' that provides no hospital name, delivering physician or any of the other information that traditionally appears on a legitimate birth certificate. And yet the 'short form' COLB is the one and only piece of evidence the White House has cited in defending its assertion Obama was born in Hawaii.

"Hawaiian law specifically allows 'an adult or the legal parents of a minor child' to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given the birth document.

"The only requirement for proof cited in the law doesn't address the birth of the child either, just 'that the legal parents of such individual while living without Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.'

"Demand the truth by joining the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

"And since Obama's long-form birth certificate remains locked away from public view and sealed by privacy laws, no brainwashing device – such as Beck alluded to in his program – would be necessary to keep Hillary Clinton from discovering the contents of Obama's original birth certificate."

The logical conclusion is that there is SOMETHING in the document that Obama does not want to share with the American people.

Even the Beckster should realize that!

Zahn pointed out that concealment is the Obama way.

Zahn:

"Obama's birth papers...aren't the only piece of the sitting president's past that Obama has refused to reveal.

"As WND has reported, other documentation not yet available includes Obama's kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records."

Who really thinks there's nothing there that might reasonably influence voters if known?

Beck, who last year publicly stated that Obama is racist, now wants to challenge Obama only on his policies and actions.

Beck: "Why don't we go after the things that are provable, after the things that actually you need to stop right now? And if you want to argue, then let's argue based in fact, based on things that are provable and true. And what do you say? Do you want to argue the Constitution? Good. Let's show the number of people in Congress and in the Senate that don't even read the Constitution – can't tell you right now if healthcare is even in the Constitution. Let's talk to the scholars. Let's talk to the average Joe that understands this isn't in the Constitution. Let's argue the Constitution on the laws and the systems that they are building today. Instead of arguing the Constitution and whether or not he was born in America, why don't we argue the constitutionality of a little known thing called czars and the power that these people have?"

Message to Beck:

First, most Obama/ACORN critics can multitask!

Second, we need to expose the truth about the Obama/ACORN relationship that helps explain why Obama appointed all those "czars."

Third, Marcel Reid is an ardent Obama supporter with personal and radical political agendas and not a "Rosa Parks.

"Radio Patriot" Andrea Shea King surely is disappointed with the Beckster ridiculing "birthers."

"Radio Patriot," in "The Lamestream Media Is Chewing Towels" (December 4, 2009) (http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/the-lamestream-media-is-chewing-towels/):

"What toute la monde is chewing dishtowels about this morning ranges from 'Sarah’s a birther!' to 'It’s a reasonable question'. But it’s one that the mainstream media won’t — can’t — touch with a ten foot pole.

"As my show producer Dave said, they’re in quandary — “They can’t take this opportunity to smash Palin once again for fear of reporting on the birth certificate story. They’ve got the club in their hand but they can’t use it.”

"Pinch is half insane this morning. If Palin had come out and said ‘I believe in flying saucers’, they’d report that in a hot second, but they can’t touch this — you know they’re banging their heads on the edge of their desks. They can’t write this story — cannot take this opportunity to smash Palin. This birth certificate/eligibility issue is a no-fly zone.

"And they like to paint her as stupid? I’m laughing out loud. Dumb like a fox. She’s placed this issue squarely on the front page of controversy. Where it needs to be."

"Radio Patriot" related:

"Anyone who has read my blogs or tuned in to my radio program knows I’ve been asking ‘who the heck is Barack Hussein Obama‘ ever since he first appeared on the national radar screen. And here’s why:

"What we DO know about BHO:

His childhood mentor was Frank Davis Marshall, who spied on U.S. military installations in Hawaii for the Soviet Union; edited a communist newspaper; authored pronographic novels; and wrote poetry in praise of Joseph Stalin. BHO was mentored by and is still supported by radical Muslims. BHO promised t[r]ansparency in government, but has spent over a million dollars in legal fees hiding information that would determine his Constitutional eligibility to be President. He is a former drug user. BHO’s academic records are sealed from kindergarten through law school. He was deserted in childhood by his supposed biological father. He has produced no legitimate birth certificate which would indicate his place of birth, the attending physician, and any other pertinent information found on your or my birth certificate. He is a president who refused to intercept or inspect a North Korean ship virtually certain to be carrying weapons of mass destruction to Burma. A president who wants to cancel all missile defense while rogue nations are developing long-range ballistic missiles. An American president who blames the violence in Mexico on America. A Commander in Chief who claims to have been unaware that Air Force One was taken on a terrifying, low-level 'photo-op' over Manhattan. And do we really know who was on-board that aircraft during the flyover joyride? A president who berates American CEOs for flying in private planes at private expense on company business, but whose wife spends hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars flying to Paris for a shopping spree. A president who promised a transparent administration but requires all questions be screened before impromptu appearances. A man who freely admits his energy policies are designed to bankrupt the American coal industry. A president who has presided over the loss of 14.7 + million jobs and whose energy policy will cause the loss of another million jobs. A president whose energy policy will increase the average American utility bills by over $2,000 a year, in the middle of the Great Recession. A man about whom liberal journalist Tom Brokaw said, 'There’s a lot about him we don’t know'… just one week before the election. "But someone knows who he is. Someone paid for his travel expenses to Pakistan and Indonesia. Someone engineered legal challenges to all of his election opponents for the State Senate and had them disqualified. Someone straightened and leveled his path to the U.S. Senate when a Democrat Judge made public the child custody records of his Republican opponent. When he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, someone arranged for him to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention Someone saw to it that all of his records were sealed, at home and abroad Someone assembled the massive organization for his run for Presidency "Someone knows all about him. And it for sure isn’t us. "But we’re disparaged as 'Birthers' by hypocrites who 'won’t go there', yet still ask why it is we know so little about Obama; Conspiracy Freaks by those who are simply ignorant of the facts; and 'Trolls”' by self-appointed 'betters' simply for asking." Michael J. Gaynor Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor Biography - Michael J. Gaynor Michael J. Gaynor, born in New York in 1949, has been practicing law in New York for more than thirty years. A member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, he is now a solo practitioner and admitted to practice in the New York State courts, the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In 1969 Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's innovative New College, then a three-year program supported by the Ford Foundation. In 1972 Gaynor received his doctorate of jurisprudence degree from St. John's University School of Law. There he was in the top 10% of his class. He won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote an article on the Pentagon Papers case for the Law Review and two articles on obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer, in addition to overseeing the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law, then called "The Quarterly Survey of New York Practice." The day after graduating from St. John's Law School, Gaynor joined Fulton, Walter & Duncombe, a Manhattan law firm with offices at Rockefeller Center. Gaynor worked with that firm, first as an associate and then as a partner, through 1996. He engaged in general practice, involving corporate law, federal and state litigation, mergers and acquisitions, trusts and estates law, tax law, and other areas of law, on behalf of the firm's clients, including International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., Carvel Corporation, Tenneco Inc., UniWorld Group, Inc., and Palisades Geophysical Institute, Inc., as well as substantial charitable organizations, other corporations and individuals. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed the law firm of Gaynor & Bass. For more than five years, Gaynor & Bass conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The United States Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation. Bass, as a solo practioner, had filed the case on behalf of a group of freelance writers, and the United States District Court had granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on liability. He is a regular columnist at www.MichNews.com, www.renewamerica.us, www.webcommentary.com and www.postchronicle.comand has contributed to www.catholiconline.com, www.capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, www.yourcatholicvoice.com, www.intellectualconservative.com, www.starrjournal.com, www.therant.us, www.peoplepolitical.com and www.salon.com. In 2005, Gaynor appeared as a guest on "Your World With Cavuto" (FOX Cable) to promote the eBay boycott that he initiated (see www.boycottebay.org/reports.html) and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the tragic Terri Schiavo case. He can be reached at GaynorMike@aol.com Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor. Copyright © 2010 by Michael J. Gaynor All Rights Reserved.

Obama’s Timid Engagement Policy Endangers Israel

By Shoula Horing

In the tradition of the failed Jimmy Carter administration, Obama’s world travels during which he has apologized, bowed to, and applauded tyrants, kings and emperors have given Obama an appearance of weakness both to America’s allies and foes. The world and especially the Middle East is a dangerous neighborhood housing many of the world most brutal tyrants and regimes. Eventually, Obama's own weakness will be perceived as America’s weakness. A perceived weak and timid US is not good for Israel or the world in general.

After ten months in office , several presumptions seem to emerge as guiding Obama’s foreign policy.

The first is that the reason there is no peace in the Middle East is that US under President Bush has failed to become ” engaged” enough in Middle East diplomacy and was too pro- Israel and not an even handed mediator.

Secondly, Obama believes that the U.S.’s arrogance,, cowboy diplomacy, and lack of engagement, humility and respect are to blame for the anti US hatred and terror in the Muslim and Arab world. Therefore, Obama has set out to improve America’s image in the world by being more liked than feared.

Thirdly, like President Carter during his term, Obama believes that U.S. power is on the decline and therefore the U.S. should abrogate its moral leadership role in the world and resign itself to containing and appeasing evil regimes and tyrants rather than confronting or defeating them.

Immediately after his inauguration, Obama and his senior officials have repeatedly announced that bringing peace to the Arab- Israeli conflict and reaching out to the Arab and Moslem world are the keystones of US policy. As the newly elected leader of the free world, the first international leader Obama contacted was PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, a man who in 1982 wrote his PHD dissertation denying the holocaust and was no 2 to Arafat for 37 years as the leader of PLO, the worlds most notorious terrorist organization.. He then proceeded to embark on his “apology” tour of the Middle East. He first visited Turkey as the showcase of a Pro- Western, moderate Moslem country, and later on in another trip he visited Egypt and Saudi Arabia while, purposely skipping Israel. In Turkey and Egypt he gave two speeches , apologizing to the Moslem world for all the wrongs the US has committed against them, forgetting to mention the thousands of American soldiers whose lives have been lost protecting the Moslem people in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. He then bowed in front of King Abdullah applauding his “great wisdom”, a man who is the leader of a country in which women are not allowed to vote, drive, or go outside without a male relative…

During his second speech in Egypt, Obama began his public confrontation with Israel over his obsession with the mostly mythical controversy of ” settlement freeze”, characterizing settlements as “an obstacle to peace” , while ignoring the fact that Mahmoud Abbas rejected Olmert ’s previous offer of peace and never even gave a counteroffer. In December 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in the presence of President Bush, an unprecedented peace proposal, in which the Palestinians would get a state in an area equivalent to 100% of the West Bank and a capital in the demographically Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.

In response to Obama’s speech and to salvage the Israeli-US Relations, Prime Minister Nethanyahu, accepted in a public speech , the two state solution. Even though , no past Israeli Prime Minster of any party, including Rabin and Peres was willing to accept a complete freeze, Nethanyahu accepted a temporary settlement freeze in the major settlement block in the West Bank, following completion of new units in various stages of construction. In response , Obama became more irrationally hostile to Israel.

In the same week in which Obama bowed to the emperor of Japan, and applauded the Chinese tyrants, he treated the democratically elected Israeli Prime Minster with disrespect and humiliation. Since Nethanyahu was already coming to the US to give a speech to the UJC Assembly in Washington, DC, he asked the White House for a meeting to speak with Obama . But Obama, who advocates engaging with enemies, left the leader of an ally twisting in the wind for a few weeks before deciding to grant him an audience. Only when Nethanyahu boarded the airplane to the US was he informed that the meeting would happen. According to the Israeli newspapers, Netanyahu was brought to the White House in the middle of the night in unmarked van instead of a limousine ,and was ushered through a side door, rather than the front door, hardly befitting his status as the leader of an important ally. Moreover, Netanyahu was forbidden to have his picture taken with the President and was ordered to keep the contents of his meeting with the president a secret. Later, he was forced to leave alone through a side exit.

A week later, Obama publicly condemned an Israeli plan to expand Jerusalem’s Gilo neighborhood calling it “a settlement”, and causing an outraged response from such peacenicks as Israeli President Peres who began the Oslo Agreement and Israeli opposition leader Livni. It seems that Obama did not do his homework again. There is a consensus in Israel that Gilo is not a settlement, since it is not in East Jerusalem, Arabs never lived there , and its houses weren’t built on private Arab land.

It seems that Obama’s cold policy toward Israel and warm engagement policies toward the Arab and Moslem world has not only reduced the excellent relations with Israel to levels unmatched since the days of James Baker in 1991 but has also failed to get any actual results or concessions from the Moslem or Arab world in return.

US efforts at restarting negotiations with the Palestinians, were set back by Obama’s exaggerated & unrealistic demand for a settlement freeze. As a result, Mahmoud Abbas who readily and frequently met with Olmert and six other Israeli prime ministers during the last 16 years without a settlement freeze, is playing hard to get and rejecting talks with Nethanyahu, expecting Obama to deliver a broken Israel.. While Abbas met Nethanyahu only once during Obama’s term, in 2008 under Bush, the Palestinian negotiators met 288 times with their Israelis counterparts ,and numerous meetings occurred between Abbas and Olmert. Abbas under Obama has become more radical, inciting against Israel over Jerusalem ,and working to maximize Israel bashing .

Moreover, a request that Obama himself delivered to King Abduallah and other Arab moderates during his Middle East encouraging them to, to reach out to Israel, by allowing over flights of their territories by Israeli planes, or opening trade offices, was rejected immediately and repeatedly.

It seems also that Obama engagement policy has failed in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.

While the Bush administration regarded the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005 as one of its biggest success in the Middle East, the new Obama administration has been less than aggressive in its backing of the pro-US Lebanese government while it tries to appease Syria. Therefore, even though the Pro Western forces won the elections on June 7, they were forced to have a unity government with Hezbolah and give up their decisive majority in the government.

In order to coax Syria away from Iran, Obama reversed Bush policy and ended the policy of Syria’s isolation, despite their military support for Hamas, Hezbolah ,and militants in Iraq. Despite the many visits to Syria by US senior officials as well as Saudis and Europeans, the US’s policy so far is failing. The Syrian president demonstratively visited Iran after the rigged presidential elections and just on Nov 3rd, Israel captured an Iranian vessel with 3000 rockets , heading to Syria with weapons destined to be transferred to Hezbolah. This is because Syria sees that the U.S. is failing in its Iran policy and ignoring Syria’s transgressions.

After the rigged June Iranian presidential elections, Obama was willing to ignore the brutal human rights violations the Iranian regime inflicted against their own people, while waiting for months for them to agree to start talks aimed at getting them to stop their nuclear weapons program. Now after almost two months of negotiations between Iran and the so- called P-5+1 group of U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China which produced no results, Iran again has rejected the group’s recent offer to ship most of its low enriched uranium out of the country to be enriched and converted to fuel rods by Russia and France and returned back to Iran after one year to be used peacefully. Further more, on Sunday the Iranian government announced publicly its plan to build 10 new uranium enrichment reactors.

Obama has warned that he intends to seek tougher sanctions early next year if Iran does not compromise, but it seems that Russia and China will not play along. According to German and Israeli Military Intelligence, Iran will have the fuel and knowledge to build two nuclear bombs in early 2010, and the International Energy Atomic Agency recently claimed that Iran has the technology to build nuclear warheads.

Obama must abandon his weak engagement policy and act now or help Israel to act before the nightmare of a nuclear Iran becomes a reality.

Obama's Engagement Fallout: Lebanon Surrenders.

by Jonathan Tobin

This past weekend, one of the genuine triumphs of American foreign policy in the past decade was officially reversed. When Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Harriri went to Damascus to pay tribute to his country’s Syrian overlord, the 2005 Cedar Revolution was buried. Less than five years ago, American pressure, which encouraged those forces in Lebanon that longed to be free, helped bring about the withdrawal of the Syrian troops that had occupied that country since the 1970s. Syria had overreached when it sponsored the assassination of Harriri’s father, Rafik, who preceded him as prime minister. That, combined with the increased influence in the region of the United States in the wake of the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, had convinced the Syrians that they must retreat.

But although the Syrian army has not returned, it now doesn’t have to. Hezbollah, the potent terrorist force that serves as a proxy for both Iran and Syria, has effectively strangled any hope of Lebanon’s escaping the grasp of those rogue regimes. Syria’s influence is once more unchallenged in Beirut. Rather than witnessing an international tribunal arraigning Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and his underlings for the murder of his father, as well as the transformation of Lebanon into a genuine Arab democracy, Saad Harriri has been compelled to swallow the humiliation of fawning on his father’s murderer.

What changed? According to the New York Times, the failure of Harriri to maintain his country’s independence is due to one major difference between 2005 and 2009: “since then, the United States and the West have chosen to engage with Syria, not isolate it.” As a result, those who thought they had the West’s backing for resisting the thugs of Damascus have been forced to swallow their pride and swear loyalty to Assad in order to save their lives.

All of which means that we can chalk up another defeat for the United States that can be put at the feet of Barack Obama’s fetish for diplomacy for its own sake. Like the opposition in Iran, the pro-independence Lebanese have been left in the lurch while Washington fecklessly pursues deals with dictators who have no intention of playing ball. And why should they, given the administration’s distaste for confrontations and its inability to rally international support for action on behalf of either a nuclear-free Iran or a free Lebanon?

It is worth recalling that back in the fall of 2008, when Joe Biden and Sarah Palin met for the vice-presidential nominees’ debate, Biden committed a gaffe when he claimed that Hezbollah had already been kicked out of Lebanon. Palin didn’t pick up on this blooper, and Biden escaped the derision he deserved for a passage in which he claimed that the best solution for Lebanon was a NATO intervention (had Palin committed such a blunder, she would never have heard the end of it). Biden probably meant Syria when he said Hezbollah, and his intention was to claim that Bush’s policies had failed in Lebanon because of Hezbollah’s revival. But as much as it should be conceded that Bush failed to sufficiently follow up on the Cedar Revolution, we now see what a year of the Obama-Biden administration has achieved in the region.

Their blind belief in engagement, as well as increased pressure on Israel, has emboldened both Syria and Iran. Those wishing to see what kind of difference Obama has made in the Middle East need only regard the wince-inducing spectacle of Saad Harriri bowing to Assad. The consequences of American engagement are not a pretty sight.

Jonathan Tobin

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Mr. Obama: Tear Down Your Wall of Secrecy

By Monte Kuligowski


Everyone has gotten the memo by this point: Do not question Barack Obama. Even conservatives have been warned by other conservatives about mentioning the secrecy issue: It's pointless and can only harm conservatism.

Recently, Rusty Humphries broke the rule and asked Sarah Palin if she would make the "birth certificate an issue" if she runs for office. In her answer, she noted that people "still want answers" and "it's a fair question." Her enemies pounced quickly, casting her as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.

The real issue, however, is not about birthers or theories or racism or whatever else you want to add. The real issue is about the secrecy of Barack Obama, and it involves more than the release of his complete birth records. Hospital records; high school, college and law school records; transcripts; writings; and passport info have been requested, and all are being withheld by Obama.

Mr. Obama is presented as the smartest man in the country, yet we have not seen his college course list or grades. Hmm, hmm, hmm.

A normative democratic society cannot allow a president to continue to speak disingenuously about transparency while withholding basic information.

We happen to have a president who touts openness, accountability, and transparency in a way that is unparalleled when compared to all previous presidents. Yet we know less about this man than about his predecessors. Consequently, there are twists of irony and feelings of distrust at almost every turn in the Obama presidency.

I therefore suggest a couple of reasons for the president to hit the reset button and release the requested information.

People have asked to see the records.

That doesn't seem to be too much to ask from a man of outspoken transparency. And these are not just any people, but citizens of the U.S., over whom he presides, who have asked. They're not asking for the moon and the stars -- just simple documents.

The "natural born" requirement of the U.S. Constitution was inserted to prevent conflicting loyalties and ideologies in a president. Citizens have the right to feel assured in that constitutional protection.

Mr. Obama is the only president in U.S. history whose father was a foreign national in the U.S. on a student visa. His father was a non-practicing-Muslim-turned-atheist, and his mother later remarried another foreign national, this one from from Indonesia, who was also a Muslim.

Some believe Obama was adopted and became a citizen of his stepfather's country. Obama's mother moved him to Indonesia in 1967 to live with his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro. While other children Obama's age in America were pledging allegiance to the U.S. and learning to respect America, Obama as a schoolboy (grades 1-5) registered as Barry Soetoro, was reading from the Koran, reciting Muslim prayers, and learning the civics of Indonesia (the Indonesian school records were released independently prior to Obama's blockade).

Mr. Obama is the only president in U.S. history to have been raised in nontraditional/non-Christian homes. Based on what he's said, his mother was an agnostic. Obama's grandparents, with whom he lived for a period, were extremely left-leaning in their religion and politics. As Obama admits in one of his two pre-accomplishment autobiographies, he associated with Marxists and radical leftists during his college days.

The president's situation is remarkably unique, and his uniqueness has nothing to do with the color of his skin. People have an assortment of reasons for wanting to see Obama's complete birth certificate and other records.

Yes, Mr. Obama has posted a bare-bones "certification of live birth" (which doesn't name the hospital or physician), and Hawaii has confirmed that the long-form certificate exists. However, it is no secret that births were routinely registered in 1961 by affidavit under the laws (Act 96) of the newly admitted state. On affidavits of non-hospital deliveries, certifications of live birth were generated in Hawaii.

Now, my argument is not that a foreign birth was registered as Hawaiian on a false affidavit. (Also, I don't argue that dual citizenship or a foreign adoption disqualify Obama.) That misses the point. My argument is that because Obama says he is transparent, he should be transparent -- especially when people have asked for the info.

No one should have had to file in court for Obama's records, including his birth records showing his hospital and delivering physician. And taxpayers should not have to foot the Justice Department's efforts in defending the withholding of basic information. Releasing the information would cost virtually nothing. The president should want to provide all the requested documents, especially when doubt exists. By withholding the requested information, Obama is slapping transparency in the face while trying to make it a feature of his presidency.

Mr. Obama might want to reconsider releasing simple documents to show that he respects the people. By refusing to do so, it sort of makes him look really arrogant, as if releasing the information would be beneath him. If he has nothing to hide, all that remains is inexplicable arrogance.

Do it for the historians.

Approximately one year ago, the Honolulu Advertiser ran a piece about Obama's fans who were attempting to find his hospital of birth and retrace his steps, visiting as many of his boyhood homes as possible. The piece opens with these words:

Birthplaces and boyhood homes of U.S. presidents have been duly noted and honored for nearly as long as America has been a nation. In the case of such towering figures as Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, those early locations have been deemed national treasures and historic sites ...


At least Obama's reported place of birth has been narrowed to one of two Honolulu hospitals (Kapiolani and Queens). At the end of the Advertiser piece, the author's awkwardness is palpable as he tries to explain why no one knows for sure where Obama was born. The author thinks that it might be Kapiolani because it was the most recent hospital the campaign had identified. But:

While most Obama residences can be traced, the hospital where he was born is difficult to document. The desire of historians to pinpoint where Obama's life began has crashed head-on with the modern American propensity toward confidentiality. The federal Health Information Privacy Act of 1999 -- a law passed to protect medical records from public scrutiny -- prevents hospitals from confirming births, administrators contend.


I have to wonder whether the author is a staunch Obama supporter, is simply naïve, or is both. Surely he must know that historians are crashing head-on into Obama's refusal to release any information. He must know that Obama's signature on one form would override the privacy act. Release-of-information forms are signed every day; the act is only for those, like Obama, who wish to keep all information sealed.

The author concludes the piece by quoting a hospital official saying, "Our hands are tied." Mr. Obama is the only one who can untie their hands. With permission, the hospitals could confirm or deny Obama's birth in two seconds. Without permission, the hospitals can neither confirm nor deny.

At a press conference earlier this year, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Obama's detailed birth certificate. His response? He laughed. And he laughed some more. The room filled with journalists laughed heartily with Gibbs. The question continues to "astound" him. After all, it's posted right there online.

As long as it's a laughing matter, why not humor us, Mr. President? Humor us with your complete birth records, naming the hospital and physician. Humor us at least by giving your hospital of birth permission to release a simple yea or nay. Humor us with your college grades and financial records. Humor us with your Columbia thesis. Humor us with your law school records and writings.

You see, the issue is whether the White House will take serious the doubts and requests of American citizens or laugh at them. Some doubt his birthplace and/or eligibility; others doubt his transparency, and hence, his character.

Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he still looks unreasonable by not releasing basic information. Maybe he is natural-born, but has a radical ideology to hide and has been counseled to seal everything in an effort to appear consistent.

Future historians far removed from the fantasy and fear of Obama will no doubt be astounded at the Obama phenomena. But they may never know of the secrets hiding in his birth, college, and/or other records. Do it for the historians, Mr. Obama: Tear down your wall of secrecy.

The conflict awaits Obama's program

The peace train between Israel and the Palestinians has been derailed for some time. World leaders are at a loss and have perhaps given up altogether; both sides in the conflict are busy explaining why the other is the real peace "refuser," while real negotiations over a peace agreement are replaced by endless internal discussions.

Israel is struggling over the question of freezing settlements, while Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu keeps changing positions in an attempt to please all those around him, Defense Minister Ehud Barak is trying to enforce the freeze and Minister without Portfolio Bennie Begin talks about the settlement population growing by about ten thousand during the 10-month freeze period. This is an absurd situation.

The Palestinian Authority, for its part, is busy with questions of leadership, confrontation with Hamas and the nature of the Palestinian struggle, while dangerously toying with violence and one-sided acts.

It appears that these are two parallel lines that will never meet. This situation leads to despair and disbelief in the possibility of moving toward peace arrangements, and serves the anti-peace camps on both sides who support the deadlock and remain undeterred by deterioration to violence. In this scenario, the whole Middle East is hostage to one Palestinian terrorist who undertakes an attack or a Jewish terrorist who burns a mosque. This is the little-man's era in which the leaders allow extremists on the ground to dictate the agenda.

HOW DO we get the peace train back on track? How do we restore the hope of peace and the faith in a partner on the other side? Now more than ever, the region needs President Barack Obama to initiate a new peace plan. Such a plan would replace George W. Bush's road map, which can no longer serve as a basis for renewed talks. Obama must gather support from the Quartet and receive the backing of moderate Arab nations, and then attempt to reach an agreement withIsrael and the Palestinian Authority.

Obama's plan should include banning violence and fighting terror, mutual recognition and a decision that all disputable issues, including the topics of Jerusalem and refugees, would be up for negotiation. The plan should include timetables and a clear working schedule, which would commence immediately after it's approved by the Knesset and the PA. It should end in a permanent agreement of two states for two nations within two years.

History will not forgive those who did not take advantage of the current relative calm - that has not existed for decades - to promote peace, and instead contributed to a dangerous deterioration which would sabotage any chance for peace and will lead, God forbid, to another wave of violence, or to diplomatic moves which would intensify the existing rift.

Obama, who recently received the Nobel Peace Prize, has a golden opportunity to undertake an act of inspiring leadership which will justify the public's trust and expectations. Only a new pragmatic peace initiative can save us from endless treading and time-wasting. Only a new peace program can bring both sides to the negotiating table, prevent the resignation of PA President Mahmoud Abbas and stop the destructive political deadlock.

This historical opportunity must not be missed, as no one knows when another will come our way.

The writer is a Labor MK and a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

The World; Europe’s Jews Seek Solace on the Right

Maybe there is hope for the American Jews yet. See

Jewish support for Obama continues to fall

By CRAIG S. SMITH, NYT

A CURIOUS thing is happening in Belgium these days: a small but vocal number of Jews are supporting a far-right party whose founders were Nazi collaborators. The xenophobic party, Vlaams Belang, plays on fears of Arab immigrants and, unlike the prewar parties from which it is descended, courts Jewish votes. Perhaps 5 percent of the Jews in Antwerp gave it their votes in the last election.

The Belgian example is extreme, but it represents the sharpest edge of a much broader political shift by European Jews — away from the left, particularly the far left, and toward the center and right, in the face of rising displays of anti-Semitism and the European left’s embrace of the Palestinian cause.

This drift from the left has ”been going on steadily for the last 20 or 30 years,” said Tony Lerman, who runs London’s Hanadiv Charitable Foundation, which supports Jewish life in Europe.

Of course, the shift is not monolithic and some of it is also associated with a rise in Jews’ social and economic status. In the vast majority of cases it represents a move toward tolerant parties of the center or center-right rather than a leap to the far end of the spectrum — where many xenophobic parties remain unfriendly to Jews as well as to Arabs. So the number of Jews on the far right remains a very slim minority.

But the fact that there are any at all is a measure of the degree to which many of Europe’s 2.4 million Jews feel abandoned by the left and are still searching for a comfortable place in European politics.

Meanwhile, they are becoming increasingly active in the mainstream right.

In Britain in the last 60 years, the number of left-of-center Jewish members of Parliament has dropped from more than two dozen to about a dozen, primarily older, members while the number in parties of the center and right has climbed from none to about half a dozen. The Tories’ would-be finance minister, Oliver Letwin, is Jewish, as is the party’s new leader, Michael Howard. Mr. Lerman says Jews in Britain are now identified in public opinion more with the Conservative Party than the Labor Party.

Much of European Jewry considered the left its natural home in the 19th century and the early 20th century. The left supported Jewish emancipation and more liberal immigration policies in Western Europe, and Social Democrats and Communists opposed Russia’s czars, who sponsored anti-Semitic pogroms, and Hitler.

But after World War II, Stalin, too, attacked Jews, and in the 1950’s the Soviet Union identified itself with Arab nationalism.

From the 1960’s onward, the left in Europe increasingly portrayed Israel not as a land of collective farmers making the desert bloom but as an occupying power. So the disenchantment accelerated, especially in the last few years. ”Arafat became the leftist pinup boy following Che Guevara,” said Barry Kosmin, head of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in London.

Jews say the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism has often become difficult to see. Swastikas and anti-Jewish slogans have marked pro-Palestinian marches in some Communist-run municipalities in France. In Britain, many Jews who opposed the war in Iraq stayed away from antiwar rallies because of the strong anti-Israeli element.

”Because of the negative stuff coming from the left, many Jews felt that their fates were tied to Israel, so they have to go along with those who support Israel regardless of the past,” Mr. Lerman said.

There is particular anxiety among the many European Jews who fled their North African homes after the creation of Israel in 1948 and again after the 1967 Middle East war. ”They fear that their destiny is threatened by Islam on both sides of the Mediterranean,” said Dominique Moïsi, a senior adviser at the French Institute for International Relations.

Those fears shape some of the most extreme voices on the new Jewish right. Giselle Littman, who was expelled from Egypt in 1957 and now publishes under the pseudonym Bat Yeor, argues in her latest book, ”Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis,” that Europe has consciously allied itself with the Arab world at the expense of Jews and the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Not all of what Jews see as a resurgence of European anti-Semitism is coming from Muslims. There is also a virulent neo-Nazi strain.

But an essential difference between the anti-Semitism of today and that of the 1930’s is that center-right parties tolerated — or encouraged — it then and denounce it today.

Even some elements of Europe’s far right have reached out to Jews: Gianfranco Fini, Italy’s foreign minister and a former admirer of Mussolini, has become a champion of Israel since apologizing to Jews three years ago for Italy’s wartime race laws and deportations. Filip Dewinter, head of Belgium’s Vlaams Belang, meets regularly with Jewish leaders and has been photographed with prominent rabbis. Denmark’s far-right People’s Party had an Israeli theme at a recent convention and served wine from the Golan Heights.

”We have a common enemy, a common struggle,” said Mr. Dewinter. He called Israel ”the forward post of the free West fighting radical Islam” and said Jewish culture is ”one of the main cultures of European civilization, but we can’t say the same of Islam.”

But Elie Wiesel, the American author, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Auschwitz survivor, warns that while the center-right has become a more comfortable place for European Jews, Jews have no place in the xenophobic parties. ”Whatever crisis we’re enduring, no Jew should go to the extreme right,” he said. ”A Jew should never be an ally of racism because we know what it is.”

In Antwerp, according to one study, at least 65 percent of those who were registered as Jews during World War II died during the Holocaust. According to another study, based on exit polls, at least 5 percent of the Jewish population there voted for Vlaams Belang last June, in the most recent elections.

Henri Rosenberg, an Orthodox Jew whose Polish parents survived Hitler’s camps, is unapologetic about his support. ”Orthodox Jews are thinking in the same ways that non-Jews are thinking, that Vlaams Belang can protect them,” he said. ”Throughout the Middle Ages, Jews had to compromise with the societies in which they lived and this made it much easier for Orthodox Jews to go with the standard, ‘Is it good for Jews or bad for Jews?”’ he said. ”Today, it seems it is good for Jews.”

Correction: April 17, 2005, Sunday An article on Feb. 20 about a political shift by European Jews toward the center and right misstated the circumstances of the departure from Egypt in 1957 of the European Jewish author who publishes under the pseudonym Bat Yeor. She left Egypt with her family after conditions had worsened for Jews and she had become stateless, not because she was expelled. This correction was delayed by research.

The Palestinian Authority Sets its New Strategy: Tempts Obama Administration with Instant Peace if it Pressures Israel.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

We now have Mahmoud Abbas's answer regarding short-term Palestinian Authority (PA) strategy. He says that if Israel stops all construction now—in Jerusalem and the 3000 apartments being completed—and accepts in advance the 1967 borders and there will be peace within six months. This is the basic story we've been hearing since around 1988: one or more Israeli concessions and everyone will live happily ever after.

This is clearly bait being dangled for President Barack Obama, offering him an "easy" way out of his dilemma of not having any peace talks after almost a year in office: pressure Israel to give up more and you will look good, with plenty of photo opportunities of you presiding over Israel-PA talks.

Of course, what Abbas wants to do is to remove one of the main points of Israeli leverage, the borders to be agreed upon and the status of east Jerusalem. Moreover, is leaving out both the additional demands he will be demanding (all Palestinians who want to can go live in Israel) and all the Israeli demands he will be ignoring (recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the end of the conflict and dropping all Palestinian claims, security guarantees, an unmilitarized Palestinian state, settling all refugees in Palestine).

In addition, of course, he can't speak for about half the people and territory he claims to represent, that is, the Gaza Strip. And by not holding elections and unilaterally extending his term, Abbas leaves the door open for some future Palestinian leadership saying he had no legitimate mandate to negotiate and therefore any agreement he made isn't binding.

Finally, he made one very big misstatement of fact, hoping—as usual—that the West pays no attention to what's said in Arabic. He claims that the PA has stopped incitement against Israel, in terms of urging violence and rejecting Israel's existence. While the PA is, of course, far better than Hamas on such matters, a very large dossier can be compiled on how that is a lie.

The question is what will the Obama Administration do? Is it going to press Israel for still more unilateral concessions so that the PA will come to talks and President Obama can claim a success? Will it try to get the PA to do something in terms of confidence-building measures or to talk without preconditions? Israel is certainly not going to accept the 1967 borders with absolutely no change before even talking with the PA (and probably not even as part of a peace agreement).

Indeed, it is now Obama administration policy that there need to be minor border modifications to accommodate the post-1967 changes on the ground. Moreover, Israel can say that if it stops all construction immediately, including in Jerusalem, the PA still won't talk so what's the point?

Incidentally, Abbas admitted that he never asked for an Israeli construction freeze before but is only doing so in the context of the Roadmap Plan. However, even after the Road Map, Abbas never made this a big issue until after Obama demanded the construction freeze. In objective terms, the president has no one to blame but himself for this mess, but of course he isn't going to blame himself. He has to blame either Israel or the PA. Which will it be?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Note: If you have not visited MERIA web site, please do so and save to your "favorites" - an outstanding place for separting facts from fiction regarding the Middle East! BeeSting

Reconsidering the Suez Campaign.

by Caroline Glick

It is hard to seize the initiative. The consequences of acting are frightening. It is always better to let others go first. But sometimes that is impossible. Today it is becoming clear that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has no choice but to lead.

The stakes have never been higher. Every day we are beset by an avalanche of evidence that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear armed state. From the secret uranium enrichment facility in Qom, to Iran's solid fuel missile test this week to the disclosure that Iran is developing a trigger device to detonate nuclear bombs, it is clear that Teheran is building a nuclear arsenal and that - at a minimum - it is determined to use it to force the nations of the Middle East to bend to its fanatical will.

Until now, as Israel faced this growing threat, it has tried to avoid leading by seeking to convince the US to act against Iran. Since US President Barack Obama took office 11 months ago, Israel's desire to convince the US to act against Iran has driven Netanyahu to take drastic steps to appease the White House.

Netanyahu has bowed to American pressure and announced his support for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel's heartland, even as the Palestinians themselves made clear that they reject Israel's right to exist.

He bowed to US pressure and is implementing a draconian freeze on all Jewish building in Judea and Samaria, despite the fact that the Palestinians refuse to even discuss peace with Israel.

Netanyahu has allowed Defense Minister Ehud Barak to unravel national unity still further by picking fights with yeshiva heads who oppose the wholly theoretical possibility that IDF soldiers will be ordered to expel Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria in the framework of a peace treaty with the Palestinians.

As for Iran itself, the government and the IDF are loudly expressing Israel's support for US-backed sanctions, despite their sure knowledge that those proposed measures will have no significant impact on Teheran's will or capacity to build nuclear bombs.

Unfortunately, Netanyahu's appeasement efforts have not brought a US payoff. The Obama administration continues to downplay the urgency of the Iranian nuclear threat and its calls for sanctions are half-hearted and will not prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Moreover, the Obama administration remains stridently opposed to using military force to destroy Iran's nuclear installations. This was made clear during a high-level war game at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government earlier this month. At Harvard, former US undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns played Obama and former UN ambassador Dore Gold played Netanyahu. At the end of the game, the US had disavowed its strategic alliance with Israel because Jerusalem refused to give Washington veto power over its right to attack Iran's nuclear installations. On the other hand, America had failed to get Russia and China to support sanctions and Iran was three months away from the bomb.

The Harvard game came just a few months after the real-world CIA Director Leon Panetta made what was supposed to be a secret visit to Israel and demanded that Israel not attack Iran without US permission.

All of this makes clear that Israel cannot depend on the US to defend it from Iran. Indeed, it makes clear that a breach of relations with the US is unavoidable.

IN LIGHT of this harsh reality, the time has come for Netanyahu to take the lead. While frightening, there may be a silver lining in this cloud.

If Israel moves boldly, others may support it. This was the message of an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday authored by Olivier Debouzy, a former French diplomat specializing in intelligence and nuclear military affairs, titled, "How to Stop Iran."

In 2007, President Nicolas Sarkozy appointed Debouzy to France's Defense and National Security White Paper Commission. A private attorney, Debouzy is well connected to Sarkozy and his national security team.

Debouzy opened with a recap of what is already known. Iran "is not serious about negotiating in good faith," and in all likelihood, it has, "for more than a decade now, concealed a significant part of what appears to be a major nuclear military effort."

He then explained what is at stake for the West. Western failure to stop Iran will convince the Persian Gulf states that they cannot trust Western security guarantees and are best served by developing their own nuclear arsenals. All semblance of a nuclear nonproliferation regime will be cast to the seven winds.

Given the stakes, Debouzy concludes that it is time for the US, France, Britain and Israel to "try to reach an agreement on how to terminate the Iranian nuclear program militarily." He suggests first taking an example from the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and imposing a quarantine on Iranian shipping in the Persian Gulf while compelling Iran's neighbors to desist from all trade and financial transactions with it.

If this doesn't work, Debouzy acknowledges, "It might be necessary to go beyond that and actually resort to force to prevent the Iranians from achieving nuclear military capabilities." To this end, he proposes planning "for a massive air and missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities."

While Debouzy invoked the Cuban Missile Crisis, given the Obama administration's position on Iran, a more apt analogy is the 1956 Suez Crisis. Whereas in 1962 the US acted alone against the threatened Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba, in 1956, France, Israel and Britain acted against Egypt without US permission to limit the harm that then-Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser could cause to their separate strategic interests.

Today, the Obama administration's treatment of US allies and enemies alike bears far more resemblance to the Eisenhower administration's policies than to those of the Kennedy administration. And in turn, the administration's behavior presents allied governments with options reminiscent to those they faced in 1956.

To the extent that Debouzy's article represents a significant thought stream in France and perhaps in Britain, it tells us three important things. First, it tells us that a significant constituency in Europe believes the time has come to act militarily against Iran's nuclear installations. Second it tells us that influential voices in France have lost patience with Obama. Sarkozy himself all but accused Obama of living in Fantasy Land at the UN Security Council meeting four months ago, in light of Obama's support for global nuclear disarmament and his cavalier attitude towards Iran's nuclear program.

Finally, by including Israel in a theoretical military alliance against Iran, Debouzy's article suggests that in spite of its anti-Israel positions on issues related to the Palestinians, France may be willing to assist Israel if Netanyahu decides to attack Iran's nuclear installations. That is, his article lends the impression that if Israel is willing to act boldly, it may not have to act alone.

THE LAST time that Israel acted militarily with others without US support was during the Suez Crisis. Debouzy's suggestion of French support for an Israeli strike against Iran should provoke our leaders to reconsider the lessons of that campaign.

At the time, Britain and France joined forces with Israel because their national interests were harmed by Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal. Nasser's move imperiled the British-allied Hashemite regimes in Iraq and Jordan. It opened the door for Soviet influence in Egypt and throughout the Middle East. And it endangered the flow of oil to Europe through the Suez Canal.

Nasser's move harmed Israel by threatening to permanently close the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping. Israel also stood to benefit from a joint attack against Egypt because it afforded Israel the opportunity to severely weaken Nasser's regular forces in the Sinai and his fedayeen terror cells in Gaza.

Despite Nasser's escalating ties with the Soviet Union, the Eisenhower administration opposed ejecting him from the Suez Canal for a host of reasons. The US wished to please its Saudi ally which, like Egypt, sought to weaken the British-allied Hashemite regimes in Iraq and Jordan. The US wished to quash Britain and France's residual post-war capacities to act without US support as Washington solidified its position as the unquestioned leader of the Western alliance against the Soviet Union. Washington was politically inconvenienced by the need to support the British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt as it condemned the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Finally, the Eisenhower administration opposed a strong Israel.

Although all three countries achieved their military goals, the US's decision to side with Egypt against them caused them all tremendous political damage. Washington forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai and it threatened Britain with economic devastation until then-prime minister Anthony Eden agreed to remove British forces from the area. France was similarly humiliated into withdrawing.

America's brutal reaction caused many Israeli analysts to conclude that Israel must never again go to war without US permission. And from David Ben-Gurion on, all Israeli leaders have given the US a de facto veto over nearly all of Israel's military moves.

While Israel's fear of angering America is understandable, it is far from clear that its interests were ever served by this policy. The fact is, while Israel was forced to withdraw from Sinai, the benefit it gained from the Suez Campaign still far outweighed the cost. Through the war, Israel secured its maritime rights in the Suez Canal and weakened significantly Egypt's regular and irregular forces in Sinai and Gaza.

What is clear is that 53 years ago it made no sense to get into an open conflict with Dwight Eisenhower. As the former Allied commander in Europe, Eisenhower's strategic credentials were unassailable both at home and abroad. Then, too, in 1956 the US was enjoying unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. Politically - at home and abroad - Eisenhower was immune to criticism.

Obama is no Eisenhower. The US is suffering its worst economic decline since the Great Depression. After just 11 months in office, Obama's approval ratings have sunk to 50 percent. His lack of credibility in foreign affairs came though clearly this month when a mere 26% of Americans said they believe he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.

At the same time, Israel has never faced a threat as grave as that of a nuclear-armed Iran. There can be little doubt that if Ben-Gurion and Eisenhower were in charge today, Ben-Gurion wouldn't hesitate to again defy Eisenhower and attack Iran - with or without France and Britain. Certainly, Netanyahu cannot justify placing Israel's fate in Obama's hands.

Fortunately, as Netanyahu's moment of decision rapidly approaches, we see that if he seizes the reins, he is likely to be surprised to find many other leaders offering him a helping hand.

Caroline Glick

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.