President Obama’s UN Speech: The Palestinian/Israeli Crisis

Part 2: Thoughts on President Obama’s UN Speech

As I parsed through the part of President Obama’s speech to the UN that focused on Israel and the Palestinians, I thought it was appropriate to highlight the following:

1. President Obama continues to try to position himself as a neutral and fair mediator rather than Israel’s ally with the following words,

“We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

To casually characterize the thousands of Palestinian/Hamas rockets that were launched into Israeli cities and their civilian populations as “incitement” is outrageous. Incitement is a minimizing understatement. These were acts of war and no nation would put up with it, including the US. Obama then turns on Israel in specific and in my view harsh terms and states;

“And we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

So let me get this straight.

Thousands of Palestinian rockets launched into civilian populations is merely “incitement” (aggravating) while Israeli settlements are “illegitimate” thus implying Israel is pursuing a policy that is illegal by international law and thus criminal. In my view, “incitement” is a mild rebuke and the “illegitimate settlements” constitute a harsh indictment of Israel.

2. He states that the second pillar of his speech is the pursuit of world peace.

In the President’s view, one of the keys to world peace (which he so badly desires to be the inspiration for) is the resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli crisis. In Obama’s view, the way to resolve the Middle East conflict is to divide Israel into two nations, ie the two state solution.  In his own words…

“The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”

So I guess Mr. Obama believes the Palestinian assertion that Israel’s dominance of Holy Land taken in wars the Arabs started and lost is “occupation” and not the legitimate spoil of war. Compare that to the way the US forcefully appropriated so much land from the Native Americans Indians. A little hypocritical wouldn’t you say? Are we “occupying” Indian lands?

3. He accuses Israel (in front of an increasingly hostile world) of not respecting legitimate Palestinian claims and rights.

“The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of Palestinians”.

Israel has been a close ally to the United States for 50 years. This statement amounts to a betrayal of that relationship. Even if he believes this statement it is wrong to expose little Israel to worldwide condemnation when she is already unfairly reviled by so many nations in the UN. Shame!

Conclusion

Judging by what Obama is saying in this speech coupled with his Cairo speech,  Obama continues to pursue a strategy that puts the onus for the Middle East crisis politely but clearly on the doorstep of Israel.

May God have mercy on the United States.

Joel Chernoff

U.S. vs Israel – Colliding Agendas

Thoughts on President Obama’s UN Speech

“First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.”

These are the words defining President Obama’s agenda concerning nuclear weapons not just for the US but also the world. He goes on to say that he believes that all nations should have the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy but not to use  nuclear weapons.

True to his globalist ideology, he also asserts that the UN and its nuclear agency the IAEA, should have more authority and that all nations should have to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and be forced to live up to it.

He says,

“All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. This is not about singling out nations – it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which the IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nations’ demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure…The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.”

Sounds good…but isn’t the US being hypocritical?

In all fairness how can the US insist on non-proliferation and elimination of nuclear weapons when the US has more nukes than any other nation. President Obama knows this, so he is determined  to lead by example and reduce our nuclear capabilities, unilaterally if necessary, to demonstrate his sincerity. In other words he will try to convince the world that he/the US means business and that Russia, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India etc. should do the same.

Why this is dangerous for Israel?

Our Arab/Moslem brothers know that these are not  empty words and have seized on a new strategy to weaken Israel. They have begun to confront Obama with an argument that goes like this,

We will stop the pursuit of nuclear weapons on the condition that Israel is forced to reveal the true extent of her nuclear arsenal, destroy her nuclear weapons, join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and agree to  IAEA inspections.

If they can pursuade the US President to accomplish Israel’s nuclear disarmament then they would have succeeded in weakening the Jewish state to such an extent as to make Israel a very tempting target for an all out conventional war where the numbers are clearly in the Arab nations favor.

If they can’t achieve this then at least they can force a confrontation with the US and hopefully damage Israel’s relationship with the US thus further isolating Israel within the world community.

To the surrounding Arab/Moslem  nations, Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal acts as a serious deterrent. They know that Israel could very possibly  destroy them if she felt that her national sovereignty was threatened.

What if Israel were to say no to President Obama’s strategy?

Already President Obama has pressured Israel in this direction and Israel has resisted him as nicely as possible.  If Israel rejects Obama’s instruction to comply with his nuclear weapons agenda (which he thinks is in Israel’s and the world’s best interest) he could begin pressuring Israel by cutting military aid and/or not vetoing anti-Israel UN resolutions amongst other measures.

In others words President Obama may see Israel as an obstacle to peace. If he could only get Israel to comply with his nuclear agenda, the Arab/Moslem world would then feel more safe and be forced to acknowledge that his path to peace is the one to take.

Surely Israel can understand this…he thinks.

And if they can’t, then the US will just have to assume the role of “tough love” administrator and force Israel to do what the President knows is best for her, the Arabs, the US, the world… and himself.

What does Israel understand?

Israel understands that she lives in a sea of hostile Arab and Moslem nations who have a stated goal of destroying this tiny Jewish state.

What Israel understands is that she wants to survive and giving up her nuclear weapons in the current hostile environment is inviting a national disaster.

What Israel understands is that she cannot – must not – give in to US pressure on this matter.

The next blog will take a look at what he had to say in his UN speech to the world about the Palestinian/Israel crisis.

Joel Chernoff

Obama Beginning to Reap What He Has Sown

The Rapid Decline of a Presidency

It has been very interesting to watch the downward spiral of the Obama Presidency after his very public and celebrated Cairo speech to the Moslem world in June of this year.

As I have previously noted in this blog, in that speech Obama (and I will summarize) subtly but clearly shifted the blame for the Middle East crisis from the Palestinian and Arab nations to Israel. President Obama became one of the leading “accusers” of Israel despite his verbal affirmation of the US longstanding and positive position as the protector of Israel.

In addition, after a gentle “wrist slap” for persistent Arab Moslem  terrorist violence against the Jewish state, he then makes Israeli settlement expansion in Judea and Samaria his number one agenda item for  resolving the Middle East crisis. His State department has consequently taken an increasingly public and hostile stance towards Israel, making Israel out in the public eye to be the “enemy” of peace in the middle East.

Even the liberal Washington Post observed:

One of the more striking results of the Obama administration’s first 6 months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel. The new administration has pushed the reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel…if he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama must be tough on more than one country, or one party to the conflict.

So, over this past summer, what have been the consequences for Obama’s Cairo speech and negative shift in US relations with Israel?

Palestinian Response:

Palestinian leadership has become much more intransigent and less willing to negotiate with Israel. They simply echo Obama’s position and hide behind his measured negativity towards Israel. As Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat boldly asserts concerning PM Netanyahu’s compromise plan for limiting housing expansion in West Bank settlements, the only thing suspended by this announcement will be the peace process. This is absolutely unacceptable. The real Israeli official answer is being conducted on the ground by continuing the building of housing units and settlements.

Erekat describes Netanyahu’s compromise as “total defiance” to US calls for a settlement freeze.

Israeli Response:

A recent Smith Research Institute poll in Israel discovered the following:

• Only 4% of Israelis believe President Obama is pro-Israel or sympathetic to Israel…down from 31% in January.
• This is in stark contrast to the 88% of Israelis that believed George W. Bush was sympathetic towards Israel.
• 51% of Israelis believe that Obama is pro-Palestinian.
• Quoting a Tom Gross Media assessment, …even many left wing Israelis rallied behind the government of Benjamin Netanyahu in his confrontation with Obama after the State Department summoned the Israeli ambassador to Washington in July and told him two families of Jews could not live in a private home, long owned by Jews, in the heart of Jerusalem, and that the Jerusalem municipal authorities should not have evicted two Palestinian families who had been squatting in the property and had not paid the Jewish owner any rent since 1985.

Since turning against Israel what has happened to his Presidency?

President Obama has gone from one who had the magic touch in politics and had unprecedented favor not only in the US but around the world to one that is in steep decline. Here  is some of the evidence:

• His job approval rating has plummeted from 60% positive in April to 45% in August. A record for a new President.
• Just 37% of the all important independent voters still approve his job performance. 59% disapprove.
• 55% of voters now see the country as seriously off-track.
• His healthcare plan is in serious trouble.
• Many experts believe that if this downward trend continues it will signal a large turnaround at the ballot box in 2010 for the Democratic Party he represents.
• This could signal a powerful erosion of his authority and ability to govern as he is now.

I will conclude with this – Isaiah 49: 25-26

In this prophetic chapter concerning the End of Days and restoration of Israel, God sounds this warning to the enemies of Israel,

Can the prey be taken from the mighty, or the captives of a tyrant be rescued? For thus says the Lord: even the captives of the mighty will be taken and the prey of the tyrant be rescued. For I will contend with those who contend with you (Israel) and I will save your children…Then all flesh shall know that I am the Lord your Saviour and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. (Is.49:25-26)

Joel Chernoff

Part IV: Obama’s Stunning Turnaround on Iranian Nuclear Threat

After the September 11 Moslem terrorist attacks on the US, President George W. Bush, as well as the rest of the world, came to the logical conclusion that the radical Moslem terrorists and their state sponsors must be prevented access to nuclear weapons. We all know that if the terrorists have them they will use them against the US and the west in general. That is essentially a significant reason the US attacked Iraq and why President George W. Bush threatened military action against Iran during his Presidency.

Iranian Threat

Iran has been one of, if not the leading, state sponsor of Muslim terrorism. The whole world knows this and has explored every peaceful means to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons…to no avail. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has made it very clear that Iran will develop nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them against Israel in particular and the US through its links to terrorist group it is sponsoring or associated with.

Obama’s new US policy

Obama appears to ignore the previous assessments of US Presidents, the European Union (EU) and even the UN. It is important to understand how Obama views himself and the world on this issue.

In Cairo he revealed his long term view on nuclear arms and how he would apply his approach in the short term to the Middle East conflict. In his own words:

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with it’s responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

Summary of President Obama’s Philosophy on Nuclear Energy

• He believes in a nuclear bomb free world.
• He believes that all nations should have the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
• He believes that all nations that desire nuclear energy must sign on to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and abide by its peaceful objectives. 

Obama’s Nuclear Strategy for the Middle East

• He knows the Arabs/Iranians will not sign the NPT unless Israel signs it, and eliminates its nuclear weapons. This is the reason he is pressuring Israel to do so. By the way, if Israel complied it would be a strategic coup for the enemies of Israel. A nuclear weapons free Israel would be a much more tempting target and easier enemy to defeat.
• By pressuring Israel he believes it gives him the moral authority to do the same with Iran.
• He is willing to trust Iran with nuclear power for energy purposes if they will sign the NPT and “promise” the world they will be “good boys and girls”.

Is Obama really that naive or stupid?

• Doesn’t he realize that Israel is surrounded by 250 million Muslim Arabs dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel?
• Doesn’t he understand that there are another billion Moslem’s- yes even so called moderate Moslems – around the world that also support that objective?
• Doesn’t he understand that for the Moslem world the baseline issue is theological/spiritual not political and Israel’s existence is an affront to the Moslem world on religious grounds

The answer…

President Obama is very smart and has many brilliant advisors. I believe he understands the situation but has come to the conclusion that he is ready to gamble with or change America’s relationship with Israel (in my opinion for the worse) in order to achieve his objectives towards solving the Middle East conflict and reaching detente with Iran and the Arabs. I believe that Obama believes that if he can just get into the same room with these Moslem hard-liners that he has the personal charm and skills to change their minds and impose his will.

Of course Israel will not agree to disarm its nuclear weapons and neither will Iran agree to discontinue its drive towards developing nuclear weapons.

How far will Obama go with Israel? No one knows. Stay tuned.

Joel Chernoff

~The views contained in The Joel Chernoff Report are not necessarily views held by the MJAA~

Important: Pre-Obama Cairo Speech Analysis

In the last few days before his much anticipated speech in Cairo, Egypt, President Obama has chosen to speak, not just through surrogates, but also directly as to the direction he is headed with the Middle East conflict and Israel.

Here are a few of the important statements he has made with my translation as to their meaning:

 

• Obama: Although the US needs to maintain its strong support for Israel, Washington also has to be “honest” with Israel regarding the direction in which the region is heading, even if this includes resorting to “tough love”.
• Translation: Previous Presidents have not been strong enough to make Israel do what it should and needs to do for the best interests of Israel and the US. He, President Obama, is tough enough and determined enough to make Israel do what other President’s did not have the will to do and force Israel to comply with his plan for the Middle East. 
• Obama: I don’t think (emphasis mine) we have to change strong support for Israel. We do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace, and that’s going to require, from my view, a two-state solution.
• Translation: The 50 year position the US has taken of standing with Israel through “thick and thin” is no longer a sure thing. In order to maintain US support, Israel must now do what Obama  feels is the right way to handle things. It’s Obama’s way or the highway.
• Obama: Part of being a good friend is being “honest” and I think there have been times where we were not as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also US interests. And that’s part of a new dialogue that I’d like to see encouraged in the region.
• Translation: There is a new sheriff in town and I am going to try a radically new approach of courting the Muslims and if necessary sacrificing our long term relationship with Israel if they do not act in the best interests for the US.
• Obama: The United States has to follow through on what it says. It is important for us to be clear about what we believe will lead to peace – and that there is no equivocation.
• Translation: I mean what I say and I say what I mean. I am not backing down so don’t challenge me on this or you will force me to play “hardball” with you.

So How is PM Netanyahu Taking All of This?

This is the first time I have heard an Israeli Prime Minister flat out contradict a US President in public. Usually statecraft dictates handling things indirectly and discreetly. President Obama has left Netanyahu no options. Netanyahu’s response has been…

• The demand to freeze all settlement growth even natural growth is “unreasonable”.
• He also said, “It is likely that we are not going to reach an agreement with the Americans regarding settlement construction.”

Conclusion

The possibility of a deep rift between Israel and this President’s administration is very high. 

How is the Palestinian Authority Responding?

PA President Abbas was not only surprised and happy with this unexpected turn of events but also made it very clear from news sources that there are a few items that Obama has proposed in his new Middle East plans which are completely unacceptable to the Palestinians. They are as follows:

• The right of return of millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel.
• The establishment of an independent state with all of East Jerusalem including the Old City as its capital.
• Lastly Abbas has said, “The only way to achieve real and lasting peace is by forcing Israel to withdraw from all the territories that were occupied in 1967.”

Is the Cairo Speech Important?

As you can see, his speech tomorrow could signal a complete change in US relations with Israel and the Muslim world. This President believes he can handle the religious fanaticism of radical Islam. In short I believe he feels he can solve the world’s problems if you just give him what he wants and enough time. 

Where is this headed prophetically?

There is no absolute certainty yet but I believe that unless Obama pulls back from the harsh measures he is planning (i.e. the tough love he has talked about) to make Israel compliant with his new Middle East plan he will force Israel into a final Arab/Israeli war. Unless Israel gives Obama what he wants, which I do not believe is going to happen–Israel will have no other choice than to attempt to resolve the conflict once and for all militarily.

Keep one eye on this speech tomorrow and one eye on Isaiah 11 which describes the Final Arab/Israeli war. I will blog on this more in the future.

Joel Chernoff

~The views contained in The Joel Chernoff Report are not necessarily views held by the MJAA~

It’s Official: Obama’s New Middle East Plan is a Poison Pill For Israel

President Obama and PM Netanyahu Meet

The much anticipated meeting in Washington D.C. between President Obama and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has come and gone.

So what do we know now?

Their meeting seemed cordial and both tried to be publicly conciliatory towards each other but it was clear that a consensus was not reached. PM Netanyahu was nice but made it clear that, though Israel will work towards peace with their Arab neighbors, he was not ready to embrace the two-state solution.

President Obama made it clear that he wants Israel to embrace the two-state solution and strongly pressured Israel to discontinue all settlement expansion in Judea and Samaria (West Bank).

The Plot Gets Thicker: New Middle East Plan Revealed

On May 21 the popular London-based Al-Quds Al Arabi newspaper ran an extensive analysis of Obama’s new peace initiative. According to this report the main points of Obama’s peace initiative are as follows:

• It is based on the Saudi/Arab League plan from March 2002.
• It envisions a demilitarized Palestinian state.
• It mandates a Palestinian state with territorial contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank that would split Israel into two parts.
• Jerusalem would be split into Arab controlled east Jerusalem and Jewish controlled west Jerusalem.
• Jerusalem would also serve as the capital of the new Palestinian state.
• Israel would forfeit sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem and the Old City of Jerusalem would be internationalized, that is belonging to no one.

Obama Initiates Another First (unfortunately)

In addition, it was noted that President Obama and King Abdullah of Jordan conceived this plan while Obama was recently visiting Jordan.

This is the first time a US President has created a peace plan without first coordinating with Israel.

This is not a good sign for Israel…and for the US in general!

So what does Netanyahu really think?

 May 22, the day after the Al Quds Al Arabi article is published in London, PM Netanyahu addresses the nation of Israel on Jerusalem Day which is the celebration of the unification of the city of Jerusalem under Jewish control after the Six Day War in 1967. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

He states in his speech,

United Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned or divided.

It sounds to me as if there is little to no give in Israel’s position concerning Jerusalem and is the polar opposite to President Obama’s desire for Jerusalem in his new peace initiative.

What About Obama’s Call for halting Settlement Expansion?

While Netanyahu has tipped his hat at this request and dismantled one or two outposts, the Israeli PM insists that authorized settlements should be allowed to continue natural growth i.e. natural population expansion.

What Does This All Mean?

It means that there is little common ground between Obama’s new agenda for peace and Israel’s new government. There are so many non-starters for Israel that I believe there is absolutely no chance Netanyahu and his conservative government would or even could agree to it without a total collapse of the coalition Netanyahu leads.

In other words Obama’s initiative is, for all intents and purposes, dead on arrival.

What Will Obama’s Response Be?

Obama has put himself in a very fragile position politically. If Obama, after all of his public posturing,  does not try to force Israel to comply he risks looking weak and impotent before the Arab/Moslem world and for that matter the world in general. He is investing a lot of the political capital he gained with his election in trying to resolve the Middle east conflict…his way. I don’t believe he will crawl away with his tail between his legs.

President Barack Obama

This is where we must pray for the President and this country.

Unfortunately, it appears…and I say appears…that he is moving in the direction of being willing to sacrifice, if necessary, the US’s long standing relationship with Israel to accomplish what he believes will bring peace to the Middle East.

Look for the US to put unprecedented pressure on Israel to bend to its will.

I hope I am wrong. Keep praying for Israel and the US.

The God of Israel is in control.

Joel Chernoff

~The views contained in The Joel Chernoff Report are not necessarily views held by the MJAA~

Disturbing: Obama Seeks to Weaken Israel’s Nuclear Deterrent

In a recent article in the Philadelphia Bulletin by Middle East Correspondent, David Bedein, I read two things that greatly disturbed me.

1. President Obama is the first President in 50 years to publically pressure Israel to diminish or eliminate their undisclosed nuclear arsenal and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
2. The last President to do so was Former President John F. Kennedy(JFK). Unbeknownst to me JFK apparently greatly pressured then Prime Minister David Ben Gurion to NOT develop a nuclear deterrent. This was a shocking revelation.

The Official Position

Rose Gottemoeller

Assistant Secretary of State, Rose Gottemoeller, said the following,

Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea (countries that are not members of the treaty despite being considered to have nuclear capabilities) remains a fundamental objective of the United States.

Amazingly, Gottemoeller omits Iran from this list.

Gottemoeller, when questioned further, declined to answer the question as to whether the US was willing to “initiate measures” to pressure Israel to comply.

Her silence was ominous.

Alan Baker

Israel’s response was surprise and worry. Alan Baker, former senior Israel Foreign Ministry legal advisor responded;

I don’t think the Americans have said such a thing in the past…The Americans know what our position is, and as long as we are under a threat from neighboring countries, both in the immediate circle and in the external circle, we cannot be expected to assume commitments that will place us at a disadvantage.

Well said. There is a reason why, for the last 50 years, US presidents have never said such a thing. They recognized Israel’s (their allies) fragile situation with just a few million Jews living in close proximity to 250 million Arab Muslims who were and are avowedly seeking Israel’s destruction.

He Doesn’t Get It…or Does He?

But somehow President Obama doesn’t understand what was obvious to so many other Presidents and is seeking either intentionally or unintentionally to weaken Israel’s position in the Middle East. Perhaps he is asking Israel to trust the US to protect them as the US has done with South Korea.

Would you trust this President? Does his track record so far warrant such trust? In my view the answer is an obvious – no!

Lastly and shockingly…

Former President John F. Kennedy

I was completely unaware that JFK had so strongly insisted that the fledgling country of Israel NOT pursue a nuclear option despite Ben Gurion’s protestations.

Soon after — his presidency was cut short.

Until this very moment I had no idea he had taken such a negative position concerning Israel’s need to deter the Arab nations around her despite the fact that the US maintained such a deterrent with Russia during the Cold War.

Another Example of a President “Running Amok” of God’s Prophetic Agenda

 

President George Bush Senior

President George Bush Senior also took a very negative posture towards Israel after the first Gulf War. He had 90% approval ratings. He should have easily won the next election over Bill Clinton. However, the opposite happened. He was gone within two years in a huge upset.

The point being that God’s prophetic agenda always takes precedence over man’s agenda. If President Obama continues to take antagonistic and negative positions against Israel and her security…God will judge and perhaps America will suffer along the way (Gen 12:3). I hope not.

Our concern is to pray for our leaders and nation that Obama not find himself on the wrong side of God’s prophetic agenda and we all suffer for it.

Time will tell.

Joel Chernoff

~The views contained in The Joel Chernoff Report are not necessarily views held by the MJAA~

Pressure From Obama Administration Building

First it was Special Envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and now none other than Vice-President Joe Biden is challenging Israel that they should back a two-state-solution. Not only must Israel support this particular formulation for Middle East peace but the new Netanyahu government should demonstrate in some fashion it’s sincerity to the Palestinians by making further goodwill gestures and concessions.

Gettin’ in Israel’s Face

He made these remarks at the annual policy conference of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). This is a major and influential Jewish organization.

He says and I quote, “you are not going to like my saying this, but (do) not build more settlements, dismantle exisiting outposts and allow Palestinian freedom of movement.”

On the other hand…

… he urges the Palestinians to “meet their obligations” to the so-called “road map” for peace. Does he specifiy what the Palestinians need to do? Of course not. All he requires is that the Palestinians and Arab states around Israel make “meaningful gestures” whatever that means.

Is that evenhanded…NO!

Is that fair…NO!

Is he showing conscious or unconscious bias against Israel and her security interests…In my view absolutely!

Mitchell, Clinton and Biden are all exhibiting a certain arrogance not just towards Israel and concerning the Middleast conflict but in everything that they are doing. Obama believes that he knows best and is riding a wave of popularity not only in the US but also worldwide. With the support of both houses of Congress I believe he is intoxicated with a false sense of greatness and rightness.

Is this good for Israel?

No! It is no coincidence that all three are firing shots over the bough of the new Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who will be in Washington soon for high level consultations with the President Obama. They are all publically trying to soften, what they believe to be, Netanyahu’s harder line on forming a Palestinian state.

They hope that Netanyahu will be compliant to the Obama administrations sense of what the right thing to do is and go along with their agenda for world peace.

So how is Netanyahu reacting to all of this combative public posturing?

He also spoke at this same AIPAC conference and asserted his “triple track” approach to the Midde East conflict. At no time did he mention the creation of a new Palestinain state.

It appears to me that Obama’s agenda and Netanyahu’s clear lack of enthusiasm for any peace formulation that put’s Israel’s security at risk, ie the two state solution is headed for something of a showdown in Washington this month.

The question is how bad will it get.  We will see.

Joel Chernoff

~The views contained in The Joel Chernoff Report are not necessarily views held by the MJAA~

PA President Smells Weakness…But Where?

The Late Abba Eban, Photo by Dan Porges

Because it is apropos I am again quoting the famous Jewish historian, Abba Eban with the same quote. He famously said, concerning the incredible tendency of our Arab cousins to consistently do the wrong thing at the wrong time in their struggle with modern Israel,“they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”.

Sending a Signal

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has decided that now is the time to get tough with Israel and perhaps try to influence/test the new US President for the Palestinian agenda. 

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas

Abbas throws down the political gauntlet by asserting the following peace process deal killers:

• He rejects any call to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state.
• He insists that Israel must be defined by the original boundaries established by the UN in 1948.
• He also asserts that there must be a complete freeze on all settlement building and expansion in Judea and Samaria (what the Arabs call the West Bank) before he will even consider beginning any peace talks.

Of course this drew an angry response from Israel. Likud MK Ofer Akunis was quick to express the Israel’s frustration by saying, “This is more evidence that the Palestinians are not interested in true peace with Israel.” Who can blame Israel for feeling this way?

Interestingly, Abbas goes on to urge the US and its new President Barack Obama to push Prime Minister Netanyahu and his new government to accelerate the peace process.

Talk about Chutzpah!

Abbas just finished laying down at least two, maybe three demands that are absolute peace process deal killers as far as Israel is concerned and then he calls on the US to accelerate the peace process?

Why is PA President Abbas doing this now?

President Obama

In my opinion it very well could be that he senses that President Obama is either weak, inexperienced, sympathetic to their cause or all three. While he could be wrongly reading Obama, he obviously believes that if he takes a hard line concerning even starting peace process, that he can extract more concessions from Israel.

What makes Abbas feel he can influence/manipulate Obama?

Abbas, I believe, has drawn an accurate conclusion that President Obama is a very ambitious man. He believes that Obama is anxious to make his mark on the world by accomplishing great things on a global scale.

Middle East Peace – the Biggest Trophy of All

Obama sees a comprehensive Middle East peace a great way to do something no other President or world leader has been able to accomplish up to now. Consequently, Abbas may feel that if he makes enough negative noise that Obama will pressure Israel that much more to make concessions in order to get the peace process started.

The stakes are high for Obama.

If  President Obama cannot succeed in getting the peace process started then he risks looking increasingly weak and impotent on the world stage and that just will not do for this President.

I believe that PA President Abbas senses this and is playing the Middle East card game with this supposition in mind.

Of course Abbas may be wrong and so could I…but this prophetic scenario I guarantee you.. is going to get very interesting!

Joel Chernoff

~The views contained in The Joel Chernoff Report are not necessarily views held by the MJAA~

Here We Go Again!

Hillary Clinton

The news media reported today that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “warned” Israel that if they don’t support peace negotiations with the Palestinians they risk losing Arab support for combating Iranian threats against Israel.

First of all, I was not aware that the Arab nations were supporting Israel in any way. In any case this is another warning to Israel from the Obama administration. Apparently the Obama administration believes that there is a good possibility that the Netanyahu government will NOT support the peace process in its current form. This is not what Secretary of State Clinton nor President Obama want to hear.

SS Clinton says that she is reserving judgment until her meeting with PM Netanyahu in Washington in May. Though she is reserving judgment she and the Obama administration are letting PM Netanyahu know well in advance what they expect Israel to do.

This is becoming very interesting…

I feel like saying to SS Clinton that I (General Secretary of the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America) am reserving judgment on her until I see how she handles herself with the Israeli PM. That’ll teach her!

The Party Line

Obama & Hillary

There is no doubt that whatever she has to say to PM Netanyahu will be exactly what President Obama wants her to convey. She will not sway from the party line.

What is clear is that they are heavily invested in the futile and dangerous two state solution and don’t really want to hear or entertain any other scenarios. They simply have a different agenda than Israel (whose main agenda is to survive and not put themselves at senseless risk) and want Israel to play along at whatever the cost.

We’ll watch together. The future of our country rests on how we treat Israel. (Gen. 12:3)

Joel Chernoff

~The views contained in The Joel Chernoff Report are not necessarily views held by the MJAA~