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~

Part III: Why Does Osama Bin Laden Hate Barack Hussein Obama

“Sowing Seeds of Hatred” ~ Osama Bin Laden

These are the words of Osama Bin Laden and these words embody the accusation Osama Bin Laden makes against President Obama. But why?

• Shouldn’t Bin Ladenbe happy that Obama seems to be coming down hard on Israel howbeit with tough love?
• Shouldn’t he be happy that Obama is speaking in a conciliatory fashion towards Islam from a major Moslem Arab capital?
• Shouldn’t he be happy that this President has a Moslem father and that his sympathies possibly lean towards the Moslem side of issues?
• Shouldn’t he be happy that Obama attended a Moslem school in Indonesia for a few years thus potentially indoctrinating him to Islam?
• Shouldn’t he be happy that Obama has promised to pull US troops out of Iraq by next summer?

There should be a lot of things that Bin Laden could be happy about so why instead does he hate President Obama and accuse him of sowing seeds of hatred?

The answer is found in President Obama’s recent courtship of Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the contents of his speech.

President Obama’s Strategy Against Radical Islam

Bin Laden’s strategy for Islamic domination is to use every violent means available to defeat the Judeo-Christian west which is led by the US and impose a radical fundamentalist Moslem order on the world as a whole. Bin Laden believes that if he can destroy the Little Satan (Israel) and defeat or subjugate the Great Satan (USA) the rest of the world will fall in rapid order.

He feels that this radical Moslem agenda is threatened by what he perceives to be President Obama’s strategy which is as follows:

• Force Israel (with tough love) to make peace with the Arabs by creating a Palestinian state next to Israel thus defusing and/or eliminating tensions in the region and nullifying the main unifying issue within the Moslem/Arab world (or so Obama thinks).
• Create a moderate Moslem front composed of moderate Moslem/Arab countries against Bin Laden and his cronies thus making it increasingly hard for the terrorists to operate.
• Bin Laden can see Obama employing the same strategy against Iran’s leadership which has the same vision for a Moslem worldwide empire.

Bin Laden has also noticed the unprecedented visits this President has made to Saudi Arabia and Egypt seeking to make this Moslem front against him a reality.

In short, Bin Laden perceives that Obama’s strategy is…divide and conquer!

This is why Osama hates Obama!

Bin Laden obviously believes that Obama has a chance of being successful thus feeling threatened.

Pressure on Israel

Now you can see why Obama is exerting so much pressure on Israel. If he cannot resolve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict then his chances of isolating Bin Laden and the radical Moslem terrorists are greatly diminished.

Fortunately, I believe that Obama will be unsuccessful in resolving the Palestinian state and bringing peace to their Middle East because his agenda requires a division of Israel proper and Jerusalem as the capital of both states.

Every President who has sought to accomplish this, starting with Dwight D. Eisenhower, has failed miserably despite the circumstances on the ground looking favorable.

God’s prophetic agenda is the spiritual and physical restoration of Israel. Anything working against that prophetic agenda will fail.

Stay tuned for Part IV of this series: President Obama’s stunning turnaround on Iran and its nuclear weapons.

Joel Chernoff

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

Analysis: Obama’s Cairo Speech – Part 2

Part 2: Obama’s Position on Palestinian/Israel Conflict

President Obama begins this important part of his speech by comparing Israel’s birth out of the ashes of the Holocaust to the Palestinian peoples suffering and pursuit of a homeland.

President Obama says:

…it is undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslim and Christian – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the west bank, Gaza and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead.

Analysis:

• First of all the “Palestinian people” have not been in pursuit of a homeland for 60 years. The Arab people that inhabited what is now Israel (and some still do live in Israel) were part of the Kingdom of Jordan. In other words they were Jordanian citizens and not pursuing a homeland. Jordan’s armies attacked Israel and were defeated in the 1948 War of Independence and again in the Six Day War of 1967. The Arab nations (Jordan included) tried to destroy Israel and were soundly defeated in both wars. That situation can in no way be compared to the incredible genocide committed against Jewish people in World War II. It was simply Arab aggression that has caused the current Palestinian suffering and displacement.
• Obama, also, seems to legitimize the Palestinian refugee’s status by saying that they have waited in refugee camps for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. The Arabs waiting in refugee camps are there because their host Arab nations have chosen NOT to absorb them as Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab nations after the Arabs lost the War of Independence. It is the host Arab nations who have perpetuated the suffering of the Arab/Palestinian refugees.

Obama continues with these choice words:

They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation.

 

Analysis:

• The humiliations, as Obama describes them, are a direct result of thousands of Arab/Palestinian bombs and terror attacks that force the Israeli government to spend untold millions to defend its borders and citizens against attack. Obama infers that this is somehow Israel’s fault and that they are being cruel taskmasters to the Palestinians when this is far from the truth.
• He also characterizes Israel’s presence as occupation. This really annoys me. The rules of war are timeless and well known. If you wage a war of conquest you risk defeat and losing control of some or all of your own land and sovereignty. The spoils to the victor are great but the risk to the losers is absolute. When it comes to Israel, the rules of war do not seem to apply. Israel is the only country historically I know that when attacked, and is successful in repelling the aggressor and possessing some of the aggressors lands, is then told by the world that it must give back the land it has claimed as a spoil of war. Israel won the war. Israel has no obligation to do anything and should be commended for its graciousness as the victor. Certainly the US army, in displacing the Native Indianpeoples of North America, has felt zero obligation to restore America’s sovereignty to the Indian nations. The US has grudgingly handed over some miniscule lands but the Indians ultimately live under the watchful eyes of the US government. So much for consistency. Israel was and continues to be the victim of Arab aggression.

It gets worse. Obama continues with these words:

So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.

 

Analysis: What is troubling with this statement is that it follows his assertion that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is occupation. This leaves the listener feeling that Israel is to blame for the intolerable suffering of the Palestinian people.

Obama continues…

America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity and a state of their own.

Analysis: It feels to the listener that Obama is blaming Israel, however subtly, for denying Palestinians a state which is properly their right. He is also, with these words, positioning himself on the world stage as a Prince Valiant, who will personally act to right this grave injustice. This is very dangerous politically. It puts Israel into the extremely uncomfortable and unfair position of hurting Obama’s international prestige if Israel disagrees with his approach to resolving the conflict. The onus should be on the aggressors…the Arabs. Instead Obama has subtly shifted the blame to Israel.

More from Obama…

Obama scolds the Palestinians and in particular Hamas and says:

Palestinians must abandon violence…Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Analysis: First of all, some of these requisites are non-starters for the Arabs. What if they refuse to budge on these issues? Is Obama saying Israel is off the hook? I don’t think so. He has already shifted the blame to Israel so the responsibility to do something concrete is on Israel not the Arabs.

That is why he follows his scolding of the Palestinians with a much more concrete and harsh assertion for Israel. He says:

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

He continues by requiring Israel to open its borders to Palestinian workers from Gaza and then West Bank.

…the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Analysis:

• I find it extremely arrogant for Obama to tell Israel that closing its borders (and for that matter building a security fence) to ward off potential terrorist acts is “against its security interest”. The last thing Israel wants to do is spend millions building security fences and closing their borders to the cheap and vital labor pool from Gaza and the West Bank. There is only one reason Israel does this…SELF DEFENSE.
• Also…Why is the onus on Israel?. My Arab cousins are the aggressors. He should be asserting that the Arabs must honor past agreements and cease their terror attacks immediately. Peace cannot move forward and Israel cannot be expected to make peace until the violence stops. He makes no such clear assertion of that truth but continues to push Israel. Why? Because he knows that the Arabs are stubborn and notorious for giving up nothing in negotiations…only Israel is willing to take steps towards peace. If he is to get the peace process going his best chance is to pressure little Israel to make indeed another concession. This is a grave injustice.

Lastly and importantly, Obama says the following:

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace.

Analysis: We will soon see if his actions match his rhetoric. If Israel will not be intimidated by the President and publicly refuses to enact measures that Obama requires that will jeopardize its security and survival, what measures will Obama take to force or coerce Israel into seeing things his way? I hope none. I believe the opposite.

Conclusion

What bothers me the most is President Obama’s very public shifting of blame for the Arab/Israeli conflict to Israel. I hope I am wrong about Obama but I believe his true heart and sympathies are revealed in his carefully chosen words in Cairo.

Part III will look at His change of position concerning Iran and its nuclear program.

Joel Chernoff

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

Analysis: Obama’s Cairo Speech (Part 1)

Preface

Obama in Cairo

Okay, okay . . . I know this post is a little late…but it has given me time to read and dissect Obama’s much anticipated speech to the Muslim world. In addition, I have read various news accounts and political pundit’s analyses of the speech and what they believe the significance might be.

Now it’s my turn. I have developed a four part series highlighting the most important issues as I see them. The articles are as follows:

• Part I – Islam and Religious Freedom…A Dilemma
• Part II – Palestinian/Israeli Conflict
• Part III – Why does Osama Bin Laden Hate Obama?
• Part IV – Confusing Turnaround on Iran’s Nuclear Capability

Supernatural Love

Several years ago, through quite unusual circumstances, God gave me a love…a supernatural love for my Moslem Arab cousins. This despite the fact that some of my Arab cousins have waged a fifty year war to destroy Israel and appear to hate the Jewish people. As I shared in the very first TJCR blog, I know that one day soon God will change all of that. I preface this article with a personal revelation because I want you to know that I am speaking what I believe is the truth not with rancor or anger but in love.

Part I – Islam and Freedom of Religion…A Dilemma

Shortly into President Obama’s Cairo speech he stated the following:

I have come to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

There are two ideas in that Obama’s statement that are just plain wrong. He says:

• Islam is not exclusive and not competitive with us and…
• Islam is tolerant and believes in the dignity of all men.

Along with President Obama, President George W. Bush and others have tried to assert for political reasons that somehow Islam is a peaceful religion and that radical Moslem terrorists have hijacked this peaceful Islamic religion.

This is a myth…a political fable

9-11 Terrorist Attack

The truth is that Islam is intolerant, aggressively competitive and violent at its core. Why. . . because its base theology teaches this. Islam’s objective is not to coexist peacefully in a tolerant world of religious freedom but to convert the world to Islam, if necessary, at the point of a sword. Every Muslim knows this because it is preached in mosques throughout the world.

Here are a few examples from Islam’s holy books:

• “O Ye who believe! Murder those of the unbelievers…and let them find harshness in you.” [Koran, Repentance: 123]
• “Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.” [Koran, Repentance: 29]
• According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are the enemies of Allah, the Prophet (Mohammed) and the angels (2:97-98)
• A Muslims life is spared even if he kills a Christian intentionally, while a Muslim may only be required to die if he kills another Muslim. On the other hand, if a non-Muslim merely curses a Muslim, he must either be sentenced to death or be converted on the spot. The reason, as Mohammed said is that only Muslims’ blood is regarded equal.
• As hundreds of thousands of Iranian Bahais found out when Ayatollah Khomeini took power, “any non-Muslim who is not a Jew or Christian is to be immediately executed if they do not convert on the spot to Islam. Jews and Christians are allowed to keep their religion as second class slaves with no civil rights and extra taxes not paid by Muslims.”

Islam’s Objective?

Plain and simple…that the world be unified under the crescent moon flag of Islam.

The Dilemma

The US and Western Europe are democracies which hold religious freedom as a fundamental right.  However, these democracies envision a free environment based on the assumption that all religions coexist peacefully.

This is where things go terribly wrong.

Islamic Terrorist

Since Islam’s objective is that the world be converted by whatever means necessary it is by definition subversive and anti-democratic. Islam will simply use the freedom found in the west to subvert a country’s freedom and accomplish its religious objective.

So what does the US and other democratic countries do?

To outlaw the Moslem faith and expel all adherents to Islam would get the job done but would be by definition anti-democratic and contradictory to our own constitutional principle of religious freedom. There is no doubt that there are many nominal/secular in name only Moslems that would be perfectly happy to live a peaceful life in a free society.

However, knowing the true agenda of the radical Islamists and the aggressive combative nature of Islam’s theology, to let Islam grow within our borders unabated would be self defeating and dangerous to the future of freedom in the US.

Our founding fathers never envisioned that the constitution’s very freedoms would be used to undermine its existence by a religion that is subversive to its existence.

What is the answer?

An answer to this dilemma requires the wisdom of Solomon. The only answer I can offer is to pray for a spiritual revival in this country and wait for God to move supernaturally to resolve the Middle East Arab/Israeli crisis as described in the Final Arab/Jewish War.

Remember – There is only one God. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Israel; and His agenda trumps all others!

Be sure to read Part II – Palestinian/Israeli Conflict, posting tomorrow!

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~