Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: Human Shields In Gaza
8/9/2010 7:23:45 PM
Hi Jim,
Yep, selling the Saudis the fighter jets might add income to the United States but I doubt it'll solve the Iranian situation. They've shown time and again their disdain for the world including their Islamic neighbors. At the top of their hit list after Israel is the USA even though Islam's agent is sitting in the White House.
Soooo, B Hussein better get the ear plugs out of his ears and wake up to the real world and not the fantasy Islamic world he so loves and protects.
Shalom,
Peter
Quote:
This is comical but the closing line should have been. "Sell the Saudi Arabians $30 Billion dollars worth of Fighter Jets"

Quote:
Hello Friends,

I believe even the dimmest of the dhimmis and the sheeples will understand the message in today's Dry Bones.

Shalom,

Peter


The Obama administration has managed to alienate America's friends without picking up any new allies. Most intriguing is his loss of popularity on the Arab Street and in the Muslim world. According to a report published three days ago by the Christian Science Monitor:

New poll: angry at US, Arabs support an Iran nuclear bomb
A majority of Arabs said it would be a positive development if the Iran nuclear program built a bomb – a first in the Arab Public Opinion Poll. Pollsters say it's part of an anti-US Arab backlash.

By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer / August 6, 2010
Washington

"A new poll of Arab opinion finds that for the first time a majority of the public across the region – including a sizable minority in Saudi Arabia – believes a nuclear-armed Iran would be a positive development in the Middle East.

The portion of the Arab population thinking that way has doubled since a similar survey a year ago, in part because of huge majorities this year in Egypt and Morocco. Egypt, which makes up a quarter of the Arab world, was not in last year’s survey.

The findings, however, say less about a change in Arab opinions of Iran than they do about a change in opinions about another country, say the organizers of the 2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll: Arabs have soured on the United States of Barack Obama."

-more

* * *

Your thoughts?
-Dry Bones- Israel's Political Comic Strip Since 1973
Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: HSIG - MTA Caves: Ground Zero Bus Campaign Will Run
8/10/2010 9:08:32 AM
Hello Friends,

Good news for a change. The MTA caved in and the anti mega mosque ad campaign they unlawfully censored will run. You can read it all below.

Shalom,

Peter


MTA Caves: Ground Zero Bus Campaign Will Run

The MTA has recognized the justice of our position in our lawsuit, and has agreed to run our ad as originally submitted. This is a great victory for freedom of speech, and we are grateful to our attorneys David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise for mounting such an effective defense against politically correct censorship.

On Friday I filed a lawsuit against the MTA (go here), SIOA Lawsuit against NYC: Bloomberg's MTA Refuses to Allow 911 Images: Bans Ground Zero Bus Campaign

Today, the MTA caved and the original ad will run. Not the revised images, the true image.

Ground zero bus

WPIX reports:

NEW YORK (WPIX) - A group opposed to the idea of a mosque being constructed near Ground Zero has filed a lawsuit against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority after the transit agency refused to run an ad that featured a mosque along with an image of the World Trade terror attacks.

Human rights organization American Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America hoped to run the ad on city's buses, however the organization claims the MTA requested too many changes, which violated its freedom of speech.

The initial ad reportedly showed a plane slamming into the Twin Towers and a rendering of the "WTC Mega Mosque" with the words, "WHY THERE?"

Pamela Geller, executive director of Stop Islamization of America and the American Freedom Defense Initiative,said the MTA requested several changes to the ad through its advertising company, CBS Outdoor, after Geller reportedly signed a contract and shelled out $9,5000 for the ad last month.

Geller said she made the requested changes but grew irritated after CBS Outdoor said the MTA refused to show a connection between 9/11 and the proposed Ground Zero mosque. In addition, CBS Outdoor said the MTA thought the ad was too controversial.

The MTA claimed that it refused to feature the ads because it contained a "9/11 image," specifically "a plane," and associated the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque slated to be built at Ground Zero with the September 11, 2001 jihad terror attacks.

Ad1

Ad2

Ad3

Ad4

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: HSIG - Gay Bar To Open Next To Ground Zero Mega "Travesty" Mosque?
8/11/2010 4:58:43 AM
Hello Friends,

Some might find the below article way off bounds and not politically correct but it's those pc individuals that have to understand the concept that Greg Gutfeld is proposing here.

Greg's proposal was officially announced in his blog and then on Fox News' Red Eye program.

Read it and understand the emotions involved about the Ground Zero mega mosque. Now that it's been discovered that Imam Rauf and his backers don't own the property outright (they claimed to be the sole owners - Taqiya at its best) and that Con Ed is a partner there might be a chance to shut these people down and score a victory for the good guys for a change. BTW, Rauf is on a Middle East trip visiting with all the potential backers of this $100 million mega travesty mosque.

That said Greg Gutfeld's project might be the way to go and show the world how the Imam, CAIR and all the other so called moderate Muslims will react to it.

Shalom,

Peter

So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it's all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing.

I'm announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

My place, however, will have better music.

For investment information, contact me at dailygut.com

DAILYGUT.COMdigg this

And remember, kids, I'm dead serious on this one. (You can tell by the lack of humor in this particular piece).

Cheers!





Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: HSIG -Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society
8/11/2010 4:02:37 PM
Hello Friends,

I read the below article and can't say I was overly surprised since I'm well aware of inter marriage within the Islamic culture. I wasn't aware of how deep this inbreeding is and the effect it has on their mental well being. This could explain much of their submission and dependence on their religion that controls their every act and deed. Lots of food for thought after reading the below article.

Shalom,

Peter

Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society

EuropeNews 9 August 2010
By Nicolai Sennels


Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool. The consequences of intermarriage between first cousins often have serious impact on the offspring’s intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings

The most famous example of inbreeding is in ancient Egypt, where several Pharaonic dynasties collapsed after a couple of hundred years. In order to keep wealth and power within the family, the Pharaohs often married their own sister or half-sister and after a handful of generations the offspring were mentally and physically unfit to rule. Another historical example is the royal houses of Europe where royal families often married among each other because tradition did not allow them to marry people of non-royal class.

The high amount of mentally retarded and handicapped royalties throughout European history shows the unhealthy consequences of this practice. Luckily, the royal families have now allowed themselves to marry for love and not just for status.

The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also predates the world’s oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.

A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called "consanguinity") and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants"

Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.).

A large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred - which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequenses greatly.

The amount of blood related marriages is lower among Muslim immigrants living in the West. Among Pakistanis living in Denmark the amount is down to 40 percent and 15 percent among Turkish immigrants (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants".).


More than half of Pakistani immigrants living in Britain are intermarried:

The research, conducted by the BBC and broadcast to a shocked nation on Tuesday, found that at least 55% of the community was married to a first cousin. This is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.” (Times of India, 17/11 2005 Ban UK Pakistanis from marrying cousins).

The lower percentages might be because it is difficult to get the chosen family member to the country, or because health education is better in the West.


Low intelligence

Several studies show that children of consanguineous marriages have lower intelligence than children of non-related parents. Research shows that the IQ is 10-16 points lower in children born from related parents and that abilities related to social behavior develops slower in inbred babies:

"Effects of parental consanguinity on the cognitive and social behavior of children have been studied among the Ansari Muslims of Bhalgapur, Bihar.

IQ in inbred children (8-12 years old) is found to be lower (69 in rural and 79 in suburban populations) than that of the outbred ones (79 and 95 respectively). The onset of various social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures, oral expression and hand-grasping are significantly delayed among the new-born inbred babies." (Indian National Science Academy, 1983Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of nsari Muslim Children").

The article "Effects of inbreeding on Raven Matrices" concludes that "Indian Muslim school boys, ages 13 to 15 years, whose parents are first cousins, were compared with classmates whose parents are genetically unrelated on the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices, a nonverbal test of intelligence. The inbred group scored significantly lower and had significantly greater variance than the non-inbred group, both on raw scores and on scores statistically adjusted to control for age and socioeconomic status." (Behaviour Genetics, 1984).

Another study shows that the risk of having an IQ lower than 70 goes up 400 percent from 1.2 percent in children from normal parents to 6.2 percent in inbred children: "The data indicate that the risk for mental retardation in matings of normal parents increases from 0.012 with random matings to 0.062 for first-cousin parentage." (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1978 Effect of inbreeding on IQ and mental retardation"). The study A study of possible deleterious effects of consanguinity concludes, that "The occurrence of malignancies, congenital abnormalities, mental retardation and physical handicap was significantly higher in offspring of consanguineous than non-consanguineous marriages."


Mental and physical diseases and death

The risk of stillbirth doubles when parents are first cousins (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants). One study analyzed the risk of perinatal death (the child dies during its own birth), infant death (child dies while still infant) and autosomal recessive disorders (serious and often deadly genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy):

Perinatal mortality in the Pakistani children was 1.5 times higher than that in the Norwegian children, and infant mortality in the Pakistani children was more than double that in the Norwegian children. Deaths due to autosomal recessive disorders were 18 times more common in the Pakistani children. Similarly, deaths due to multiple malformations, which may be part of unrecognized autosomal recessive syndromes, were 10 times more common.

(BMJ, 1994 Infant death and consanguineous marriage.

There are also evidence suggesting that inbred people has a higher risk of developing mental disorders: "The clinical observations indicated that depression is very high in some communities where the consanguinity of marriages is also high." (Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 2009 "Relationship between consanguinity and depression in a south Indian population".

Another study focused on the relationship between intermarriage and schizophrenia: "The closer the blood relative, the more likely was there to be a schizophrenic illness." (American Psychiatric Press, 1982 The role of genetic factors in the ethiology of the schizophrenic
disorders
.

The increased risk of insanity among children of marriages between cousins might explain why immigrant patients are stressing the psychiatric system and are strongly overrepresented among insane criminals: "In Sct. Hans Hospital, which has the biggest ward for clinically insane criminals in Denmark, more than 40 percent of the patients have an immigrant background." (Kristeligt Dagblad, 26/6 2007Ethnic minorities overrepresented among the criminal insane).


Implications for the Western and the Muslim World

The consequences for offspring of consanguineous marriages are unpleasantly clear: Death, low intelligence or even mental retardation, handicaps and diseases often leading to a slow and painful death. Other consequences are:

Limited social skills and understanding, limited ability to manage education and work procedures and painful treatment procedures. The negative cognitive consequences also influence the executive functions. The impairment of concentration and emotional control most often leads to anti-social behavior.

The economic costs and consequences for society of inbreeding are of course secondary to the reality of human suffering.

However, inbreeding among Muslims has severe implications for both the Western societies and the Muslim world.

Expenses related to mentally and physically handicapped Muslim immigrants drains the budget for other public services: "When cousins have children together, they are twice as likely to have a disabled child - it costs municipal funds dearly. Disabled immigrant children costs Danish municipalities millions. In Copenhagen County alone, the number of disabled children in the overall increase of 100 percent at 10 years. ... Meredith Lefelt has contacted 330 families with disabled children in Copenhagen. She estimates that one third of their clients have a foreign cultural background." (BT, 10/11 2003Immigrants inbreeding costing one million.

On top come the expenses for Muslim immigrants who - because of different consequences of being born from blood related parents - are not able to live up to the challenges of our Western work market: Muslim immigrants and their descendants in Europe have a very high rate of unemployment.

The same goes for Muslims in USA, where the Gallup Institute made a study involving 300.000 people concluding “The majority of Muslims in USA have a lower income, are less educated and have worse jobs than the population as a whole.” (Berlingske Tidende, d. 3. marts 2009: Muslims thrive in USA.

The cognitive consequences of Muslim inbreeding might explain why non-Western immigrants are more than 300 percent more likely to fail the Danish army's intelligence test than native Danes: "19.3% of non-Western immigrants are not able to pass the Danish army's intelligence test. In comparison, only 4.7% of applicants with Danish background do not pass." (TV 2 Nyhederne, 13/6 2007Immigrants flunk army test.

It probably also explains - at least partly - why two thirds of all immigrant school children with Arabic backgrounds are illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system: "Those who speak Arabic with their parents have an extreme tendency to lack reading abilities - 64 percent are illiterate. ... No matter if it concerns reading abilities, mathematics or science, the pattern is the same: The bilingual (largely Muslim) immigrants' skills are exceedingly poor compared to their Danish classmates." (Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, May 2007: Ethnic students does not make Danish children worse.

The high expenses on special education for slow learners consumes one third of the budget for the Danish schools. “Immigrant children are clearly overrepresented on Copenhagen’s schools for retarded children and children with physical handicaps. … 51 percent of the children on the three schools in Copenhagen for children with physical and mental handicaps har immigrant back ground and on one of the schools the amount is 70 percent. … These amounts are significantly higher than the share of immigrant children in the municipality, which is 33 percent. The many handicapped children are a clear evidence that there are many intermarried parents in the immigrant families.” (Jydske Vestkysten, 4/4 2009 Tosprogede i overtal på handicapskoler).

Our high level of education may also make it harder for inbred students to follow and finish their studies: "Young people with minority backgrounds have a significantly higher dropout rate at secondary schools than youth with a Danish background. For trade school education, the dropout rate among immigrants is 60 percent, twice as high among adolescents with a Danish background....

There is great variation in educational outcomes when compared with national origin. For example, dropout among young people with Lebanese or Iranian background is far greater than among people of Vietnamese background." (Center for Knowledge on Integration in Randers, May 2005 “Youth, education and integration“). ”Among immigrant children that are born and raised in Denmark, more than a third has no education. Among native Danes it is less than one fifth that do not get an education. (Statistics Denmark: “Indvandrere i 2007”.

The negative consequences of inbreeding are also vast for the Muslim world. Inbreeding may thus explain why only nine Muslims ever managed to receive the prestigious Nobel Prize (5 of them won the "Peace Prize" - for peace that turned out not to last for very long).

The limited ability to understand, appreciate and produce knowledge following a limited IQ is probably also partly the reason why Muslim countries produce 1/10 of the World average when it comes to scientific research: "In 2003, the world average for production of articles per million inhabitants was 137, whereas none of the 47 OIC countries for which there were data achieved production above 107 per million inhabitants. The OIC average was just 13." (Nature 444, p. 26-27, 1. November 2006 ”Islam and science: The data gap”.

The lack of interest in science and human development in the Muslim World is also clear in the UN Arab Human Development Reports (AHDR). AHDR concludes that there have been fewer books translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year:

"The Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one fifth of the number that Greece translates. The cumulative total of translated books since the Caliph Maa'moun's [sic] time (the ninth century) is about 100,000, almost the average that Spain translates in one year." (Eugene Rogan ”Arab Books and human development”. Index of Censorship, vol. 33, issue 2 April 2004, p. 152-157). "70 percent of the Turkish citizens never read books."(APA, 23 February 2009 “).


Conclusion

There is no doubt that the wide spread tradition of first cousin marriages among Muslims has harmed the gene pool among Muslims. Because Muslims’ religious beliefs prohibit marrying non-Muslims and thus prevents them from adding fresh genetic material to their population, the genetic damage done to their gene pool since their prophet allowed first cousin marriages 1,400 years ago are most likely massive. The overwhelming direct and indirect human and societal consequences have been explained above.

Compassion for the health of future generations should be enough to ban intermarriage among first cousins. The economic and societal consequences do also count. Such a ban would also lessen Muslim immigration to the West because many Muslim families would like to be able to continue their practice of intermarriage in order to live up to cultural and religious traditions and keep wealth and power inside their family.

A legislative ban on first cousin marriages is a logical and compassionate imperative for both the Muslim world, for EU and our Western national governments.

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: HSIG - Is There A Chance That BHO Will Strike Iran's Nuclear Installations?
8/14/2010 10:21:07 AM

Hello Friends,

One has to wonder if B Hussein really understands the dangers of a nuclear Iran considering his seeming capitulation to all the insults, provocations, threats and every slap in the face the Iranian crazies are throwing at the United States.

I think you'll find the below article by Caroline Glick interesting and enlightening.

Shalom,

Peter


[ Breadcrumb End ][ Block Spacer Start ] [ Block Spacer End ] Green Israel - Article control [ Clear ]

Column One: Guide to the Perplexed




Are there any circumstances in which US President Barack Obama will order a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations?

[ Block Spacer End ][ Left Content Start ][ Block Spacer Start ] [ Block Spacer End ] Israel’s leaders are reportedly concerning themselves with one question today. Are there any circumstances in which US President Barack Obama will order the US military to strike Iran’s nuclear installations before Iran develops a nuclear arsenal? From Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu down the line, Israel’s leaders reportedly raise this question with just about everyone they come into contact with. If this is true, then the time has come to end our leaders’ suspense.

The answer is no.

For all intents and purposes, there are no circumstances in which Obama would order an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations to prevent Iran from developing and fielding nuclear weapons. Exceptions to this statement fall into two categories: Either they are so implausible that they are operationally irrelevant, or they are so contingent on other factors that they would doom any US attack to failure.

Evidence for this conclusion is found in every aspect of Obama’s foreign policy. But to prove it, it is sufficient to point out point three aspects of his policies.

First of all, Obama refuses to recognize that an Iranian nuclear arsenal constitutes a clear and present danger to US national security.

Obama’s discussions of the perils of a nuclear Iran are limited to his acknowledgement that such an arsenal will provoke a regional nuclear arms race. This is certainly true. But then, that arms race has already begun. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the UAE and Kuwait have all announced their intentions to build nuclear reactors. In some cases they have signed deals with foreign countries to build such facilities.

And yet, while a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is bad, it is far from the worst aspect of Iran’s nuclear program for America.

America has two paramount strategic interests in the Middle East. First, the US requires the smooth flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Persian Gulf to global oil markets.

Second, the US requires the capacity to project its force in the region to defend its own territory from global jihadists.

Both of these interests are imperiled by the Iranian nuclear program. If the US is not willing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it will lose all credibility as a strategic ally to the Sunni Arab states in the area.

For instance, from a Saudi perspective, a US that is unwilling to prevent the ayatollahs from fielding nuclear weapons is of no more use to them than Britain or China or France. It is just another oil-consuming country. The same goes for the rest of the states in the Gulf and in the region.

The Arab loss of faith in US security guarantees will cause them to deny basing rights to US forces in their territories. It will also likely lead them to bow to Iranian will on oil pricesetting through supply cutbacks. In light of this, the Iranian nuclear program constitutes the greatest threat ever to US superpower status in the region and to the well-being of the US economy.

Then there is the direct threat that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes for US national security. This threat grows larger by the day as Iran’s web of strategic alliances in Latin America expands unchallenged by the US. Today Iran enjoys military alliances with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil and Bolivia.

As former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton has argued, at least the Soviets were atheists. Atheists of course, are in no hurry to die, since death can bring no rewards in a world to come. Iran’s leaders are apocalyptic jihadists. Given Iran’s Latin American alliances and Iran’s own progress toward intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran makes the Cuban missile crisis look like a walk in the park.

In the face of this grave and gathering threat, Obama canceled plans to deploy antiballistic missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. He has shunned the pro-American Honduran and Colombian governments in favor of Nicaragua and Venezuela. He has welcomed Brazil’s anti-American president to the White House. He cancelled the F-22.

THE FACT that Obama fails to recognize the danger an Iranian nuclear arsenal poses to the US does not in and of itself prove that Obama would not attack Iran’s nuclear installations.

After all, the US has fought many wars and launched countless campaigns in its history against foes that posed no direct threat to the US. In most of these cases, the US has fought on behalf of its allies.

In the case of Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, because the Iranians have openly placed Israel first on their nuclear targeting list, US debate about Iran’s nuclear program has been anchored around the issue of Israel’s national security. Should the US attack Iran’s nuclear installations in order to defend Israel? Given the distorted manner in which the debate has been framed, the answer to that question hinges on Obama’s view of Israel.

Three recent moves by Obama and his advisers make clear that Obama takes a dim view of Israel. He views Israel as neither a credible ally nor a credible democracy.

First, there is the character of current US military assistance to Israel and to its neighbors.

In recent months, the Obama administration has loudly announced its intentions to continue its joint work with Israel toward the development and deployment of defensive anti-missile shields. Two things about these programs are notable. First, they are joint initiatives.

Just as Israel gains US financing, the US gains Israeli technology that it would otherwise lack. Second, as Globes reported last week, Obama has actually scaled back US funding for these programs. For instance, funding for the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile program – intended to serve as Israel’s primary defensive system against Iranian ballistic missiles – was cut by $50 million.

The defensive character of all of these programs signals an absence of US support for maintaining Israel’s capacity to preemptively strike its enemies. When the Pentagon’s refusal to permit Israel to install its own avionics systems on the next generation F-35 warplanes is added to the mix, it is difficult to make the argument that the US supports Israel’s qualitative edge over its enemies in any tangible way.

An assessment that the US has abandoned its commitment to Israel’s qualitative edge is strengthened by the administration’s announcement this week of its plan to sell Saudi Arabia scores of F-15 and F-16 fighter jets for an estimated $30 billion. While the US has pledged to remove systems from the Saudi aircraft that pose direct threats to Israel, once those jets arrive in the kingdom, the Saudis will be able to do whatever they want with them. If one adds to this equation the reduced regional stature of the US in an Iranian nuclear age, it is clear that these guarantees have little meaning.

Obama’s moves to reduce Israel’s offensive capacity and slow its acquisition of defensive systems goes hand in hand with his rejection of Israel’s right to self-defense and dismissive attitude toward Israel’s rule of law. These positions have been starkly demonstrated in his administration’s treatment of Israel in the wake of the IDF’s takeover of the Turkish- Hamas Mavi Marmara terror ship on May 31.

In the face of that blatant display of Turkish aggression against Israel as it maintained its lawful maritime blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza’s coastline, Obama sided with Turkey and Hamas against Israel. Obama demanded that Israel investigate its handling of the incident. Moreover, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that Israel was incapable of credibly investigating itself, and so required Israel to add non-Israeli members to its investigative committee.

Yet even Israel’s acceptance of this US humiliation was insufficient for Obama. His UN envoy Susan Rice then demanded that Israel accept a UN investigative panel that is charged with checking to see if the Israeli committee has done its job. And if the UN panel rejects the Israeli commission’s findings, it is empowered to begin its own investigation.

As to the UN, as former Obama and Clinton administration officials Ray Takeyh and Steven Simon explained in an article in the Washington Post last week, Obama’s national security strategy effectively revolves around subordinating US national security policy to the UN Security Council. In the remote scenario that Obama decided to use force against Iran, his subservience to the UN would rule out any possibility of a surprise attack.

Although in theory the US military’s capacity to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities is much greater than Israel’s, given its practical inability to launch a surprise attack, in practice it may be much smaller.

All of these factors constitute overwhelming evidence that there are no conceivable circumstances under which Obama would order a US strike on Iran’s nuclear installations to forestall Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. And this reality should lead Israel’s leaders to three separate conclusions.

FIRST, AND most urgently, Israel must attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Iran’s nuclear ambitions must be set back at least until 2017, the latest date at which a new – and hopefully more rational – US administration will certainly be in office.

Second, given the fact that the US will not take action against Iran’s nuclear installations, there is no reason for Israel to capitulate to US pressure on lesser issues. The Obama administration has nothing to offer Israel on this most important threat, and so Israel should not do anything to strengthen its position. Among other things, this conclusion has clear implications for Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, Israel’s future responses to Lebanese aggression, and Israel’s continued cooperation with the UN probes of the Turkish- Hamas terror ship.

Finally, Obama’s behavior is a clear indication that Israel was wrong to allow itself to become militarily dependent on US military platforms.

Former defense minister Moshe Arens wrote recently that Israel should strongly consider abandoning plans to purchase the F-35 and restore the scrapped Lavi jetfighter to active development. Arens suggested that in doing so, Israel may find willing collaborators in the Indians, the French and even the Russians.

No, the US has not become Israel’s enemy – although the Obama administration has certainly struck an adversarial chord. Polling data suggests that most Americans disagree with Obama’s treatment of Israel and recognize that Iran is a threat to the US.

But polls aside, the answer to Israel’s desperate queries is that it is up to us. If the Obama administration teaches us anything, it teaches us that we must rely first and foremost on ourselves.

caroline@carolineglick.com
[ Block Spacer Start ]

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!