Tag Archives: Palestinians

Obama Continues Dramatic Shift Towards Palestinian Aspirations

In a continuation of the trajectory supporting Palestinian/Moslem aspirations for statehood at the expense of Israel’s security and some might argue survival, President Obama proclaimed to the world that he expects Israel to return to pre-1967 boundaries. Robert Satloff, writing for the International Jerusalem Post explains,

He is the first  sitting US President to say that the boundaries should be “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps”. The Obama formulation concretizes a move away from four decades of US policy based on UN Security Council Resolution 242 which has always interpreted calls for an Israeli withdrawal to a secure and recognized border as not synonymous with the pre-1967 borders.

Likud MK, Danny Danon, further explains,

Barack Hussein Obama adopted Yasser Arafat’s staged plan for Israel’s destruction, and he is trying to force it on our Prime Minister…All that was new in the speech was that he called for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders without resolving the crisis. Netanyahu has only one option: “Tell Obama to forget about it.”

Israeli Prime Minister…

Benyamin Netanyahu, quickly responded to Obama’s new position on Israel’s boundaries by saying that  signing such an agreement would leave Israel in an indefensible military position and threaten the survival of the Jewish state.

Netanyahu further asserts,

The Palestinians, and not only the US, must recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people…and expects to hear from President Obama a reconfirmation of commitments to Israel from 2004 that received wide support in both houses of Congress.

The Jerusalem Post also reports that….

… the President Bush letter to PM Ariel Sharon (in 2004) “did not call for a return to the 1967 lines, and that it recognized that any agreement would take into account the changed realities on the ground–a line interpreted by Israel to mean a recognition that it would hold on to the large settlement blocs.

Netanyahu goes on to say,

The Bush commitments deal with Israel not being asked to withdraw to pre-1967 lines, which are not defensible, and which place large population centers in Judea and Samaria outside of these borders.

Netanyahu also asserted that the Bush letter made clear that Palestinian refugees would be absorbed in a future Palestinian State. (Jerusalem Post)

So where is this headed?

As PM Netanyahu flies to the US to meet with President Obama and speak to both houses of Congress, there is no question in my mind that the current US administration is continuing to set a course that will further alienate the US from its close alliance with Israel. Israel has no choice but to reject the President’s  new formulations for peace which can only further strain and isolate Israel from its primary ally, the USA.

I would remind this government of the God’s words from Isaiah 54:14 in which He delivers a clear promise to Israel in the prophetic period called “latter days”. God promises:

If anyone stirs up strife, it is not from me. Whoever stirs up strife with you shall fall because of you…and you shall refute every tongue that rises up in judgment against you. Isaiah 54: 14-15

Continue to pray for both the US and Israel. Specifically that our leaders will forsake the path of antagonism with Israel and continue to be the support we have been for the past 50 years. A word to the wise…

Joel Chernoff

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

President ObamaPart 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 Burningimplying 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 theBarack Obama 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,President Obama

“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?Israeli Flag Burning

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?Indonesia Protest

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.

President ObamaAs 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.

benjamin-netanyahuErekat 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


Important: Pre-Obama Cairo Speech Analysis

Barack ObamaIn 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?

Israeli PM NetanyahuThis 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?

Obama Foreign Policy AnalysisPA 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~

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~

Here We Go Again!

Hillary Clinton

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

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~