Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Antisemitism vs. Terrorism

May 21, 2015

Which is more powerful, Anti-Semitism or terrorism? Do not underestimate the strength of Anti-Semitism. It has proven to be more powerful than terrorism. To clarify, given the choice of promoting Anti-Semitism or combating terrorism when they are pitted against each other, the world is choosing the former. At a time when it could not be any clearer that the right course of action would be to eradicate both diseases, Anti-Semitism is flourishing, even though it means making sacrifices in the fight against terrorism.

Radical Islamic terrorism is currently concentrated in the Middle East, but it is rapidly spreading across the globe. Between Iran and IS, much of the Middle East is in turmoil. Vast parts of Africa also are home to radical Islamic terrorists. Iran is increasing its presence in Latin America. Muslims have such a strong foothold in Europe that many experts say "Europe is lost". The United States, which had to endure two terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, has seen a growing trend of radical Islamic terrorist threats and acts. Yet somehow, the international community is obsessed with Israel and has the nerve to brand it as the world's foremost villain. Many still cling to and propagate the outrageous myth that if only there was a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, there would be peace in the world. The truth is that radical Islamists will not allow there to be peace in Israel or anywhere else whether or not there is a two-state solution.

Radical Islamists murder, behead and slaughter innocent people of all religions to achieve their objective of establishing an Islamic caliphate. They know no bounds and have no limits. The more infidels they kill, the more successful their mission. These terrorists do not believe in rights for non-believers, women, minorities, gays...the list goes on and on. They are honest enough to admit their goals and do not deny their violent views and actions. In fact, they rush to claim responsibility for atrocities they commit. IS is running a strategic and effective global marketing campaign to attract new recruits. The violent and abominable acts committed across the globe today in the name of Islam could not be any clearer.

Israel is the only real democracy in the region and the one Jewish country in the entire world. It has Hezbollah, a radical Islamic terrorist group, on its border with Lebanon. It has Hamas, another radical Islamic terrorist group, on its border with Gaza. Both of these terrorist groups vow to annihilate Israel and are supported by Iran, which has made the same vow. It is not as if these are empty threats. Hezbollah and Hamas have repeatedly targeted innocent Israeli civilians with rockets and missiles. Iran is trying to obtain a nuclear weapons system and appears to be succeeding in its quest. Complicating matters even more for Israel is the growing Who's Who List of radical Islamic terrorist groups, including IS, that want to destroy Israel and conquer Jerusalem as part of their religious vision. Some of these groups are competing for the area across from Israel's Golan Heights, further threatening Israel's security. Of course, there also are terrorists among the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

A reasonable and objective person would conclude that Israel cannot risk its existence by gambling on a two-state solution. Put more bluntly, they would be horrified for Israel given its precarious position. And a true ally would do everything it could to support Israel. Even if Israel had a partner for peace, which it does not, any land that is ceded by Israel would be filled by radical Islamic terrorists, whether from the Palestinian Authority, Hamas or another radical Islamic terrorist group. Israel's relinquishment of control over these areas would facilitate the mission of these radical Islamic jihadists. We have seen this play out the same way many times before (for example, withdrawal from Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq and the Russians from Afghanistan).

The reasonable and objective person would understand that Israel takes foolish measures, termed rules of engagement, which jeopardize the safety and security of its own people, to appease the Palestinians and the world community. Israeli military and police personnel are forced to operate while in handcuffs and are held to a standard of care that dwarfs that of other countries and endangers Israeli civilians and security personnel. The fact that they are confronting and combating terrorists who are deliberately trying to murder innocent Israelis is ignored. Instead, false moral equivalency arguments are forced down the throats of Israeli leaders and citizens. The result is that one side, the radical Islamic terrorists, are doing all they can to wipe Israel off the map and to kill Jewish men, women and children, young and old included, while the other side, Israel, has to sacrifice the well-being of its civilians and young military and police personnel by taking ridiculous security measures in its self-defense to placate the international community.

The world community also distorts the truth as to the treatment of arabs by Israel. Arabs have more rights in Israel than they do in Muslim countries. Ask yourself this question. Would a minority, gay woman of any religion have more rights and be better protected living in Israel or a Muslim country (any Muslim country)? Arabs would have even more rights in Israel if they lost their hatred of Jews and abandoned their goal of annihilating Israel. But this will not happen, it cannot happen, because it is unacceptable to radical Islamic terrorists and many other Muslims for Israel to exist. In fact, Israel has had to restrict the access of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza because of terrorist attacks. But even that has not prevented the recent wide-spread terrorist attacks and plots emanating from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

Even if the Palestinians were to reach a peace agreement with Israel for a two-state solution, they have made it clear that they do not want any Jews in the new Palestinian state. This while demanding that Palestinians who, for the most part, departed Israel of their own volition before or during wartime should be allowed to return to Israel decades later. Not to a new Palestinian state, but to Israel. The Palestinians also demand East Jerusalem as their capital. Should an agreement be reached allowing the Palestinians to claim East Jerusalem as their capital, they would deny access to Jews there too. Israel unilaterally and unconditionally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 only to receive rockets and missiles as a thank you. One need not ask Hamas if it welcomes Jews in Gaza. But these prejudicial and discriminatory statements and actions of the Palestinians are given a free pass. And while the international community has gotten caught in the Palestinian refugee trap, it has amnesia when it comes to Jews who were expelled from Muslim countries stripped of all of their possessions. The international community also is shamefully silent on the millions of refugees forced to flee Muslim countries during the ongoing Islamic rage of violence. Millions of the refugees are from Syria alone. Yet it is only Israel that is forced to prove time and again that it is not racist and does not discriminate. The reasonable and objective person can clearly see the international community's vile Anti-Semitism against Israel and its Jews.

Despite the fear of many liberals, government leaders included, global Islamic jihad has not resulted in Islamophobia. Instead, it is Anti-Semitism that is escalating worldwide. The reasonable and objective person would expect that with all of the blood being spilled by radical Islamic terrorists in the name of Islam, old myths, like the one promising peace in the Middle East and the rest of the world if only Israel reached an agreement with the Palestinians, would die a natural death. Yet, it is not uncommon to continue to hear such lies and propaganda. Taking this to the next false step, those people who are not too embarrassed to put forth such nonsense link Israel as the cause of broader Anti-Semitism. From there, it is not very difficult for them to try to legitimize the prevalent worldwide Anti-Semitism. In other words, the Anti-Semitism directed at Israel and its Jews is used to explain, justify and excuse the escalation of worldwide Anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism is again rampant in many European countries. These countries are struggling to address their own domestic Muslim problems and should hardly be trying to compel Israel to make the same mistakes they made. Does France, with its Shariah no-go zones, really believe that it should be preaching to Israel? These countries need to be more concerned with protecting their own citizens and stopping Anti-Semitism at home than with obsessively pressuring Israel to cave in to the demands of radical Islamic terrorists. Why, exactly, is the safety and security of their own citizens, including Jews, not the top priority for these countries?

The victims of radical Islamic terrorism are not limited to Jews. Christians and members of other faiths also are being targeted, which makes it all the more astounding that the international community sides with the terrorists over Israel and with radical Islamists over Jews. That Israel receives far more scrutiny and blame than any other country despite being on the front lines in the war against radical Islam and fighting every day for its survival is a clear sign of Anti-Semitism. In fact, it could not be any clearer. And it proves that terrorism, with all of its inherent wickedness and as strong as it is, cannot compete with the age-old, more powerful evil of Anti-Semitism.

Flotilla Fiction and Folly

May 12, 2015

A cargo ship (it looks more like a boat) from Ship to Gaza, a Swedish organization, has embarked on its journey to break Israel's naval blockade of Gaza. This is the first boat of the Freedom Flotilla III to leave for Gaza on that mission. A similar attempt in 2010 (Freedom Flotilla I) was unsuccessful and resulted in the death of nine Turkish nationals when Israeli naval commandos boarded a flotilla ship to prevent it from breaking the blockade and were met with violent resistance. Thankfully, Israel, in keeping with its prior practice, has clearly stated that it will not allow any boats or ships from the Freedom Flotilla III to break the blockade. With the painful reality of Israel's war with Hamas in the summer of 2014 and fundamental Islamic terrorists on the warpath worldwide, Israel really has no choice. Nor does Egypt and it too is holding firm on its land blockade of Gaza. Yet there are groups like Ship to Gaza that will engage in fiction and folly no matter what.

Ship to Gaza calls for the end of Israel's naval and land blockade of Gaza, the building of a new seaport in Gaza and a passageway between Gaza and the West Bank. Or, in other words, Israel's demise. Although inexcusably ignored by groups like Ship to Gaza, the blockades are designed to stop attacks by terrorist regimes such as Iran and terrorist groups such as Hamas, which is based in Gaza. To portray Israel as the villain is disingenuous and confuses good and evil. Israel unilaterally and unconditionally left Gaza in 2005. Israel had every interest in seeing Gaza succeed as it took its good faith, one-sided actions hoping to find peace. The Palestinians, of their own volition, then elected Hamas over Fatah. Following a violent civil war, Hamas gained control of Gaza and Fatah gained control of the West Bank. Instead of peace, the Palestinians in Gaza repaid Israel with rocket and mortar fire targeted at its innocent civilians.

Israel's security concerns again proved to be spot on during its most recent war with Hamas, as it became painfully obvious that Hamas was doing exactly what Israel feared. Hamas had used international aid and resources to construct an infrastructure of terror in Gaza. Homes, schools, mosques, hospitals and tunnels were all part of this terrorist infrastructure. Yet, even during this war, Israel continued to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. As new international aid goes into rebuilding Gaza yet again, there already are reports that instead of building an infrastructure for prosperity, Hamas is diverting the resources to construct new tunnels of death. For some reason though, Ship to Gaza does not have any qualms about that. May I suggest that Ship to Gaza update the timeline on its website, which stops in November 2012, to include all of these pertinent facts. Although they run counter to its fiction, I am sure that it can spin them enough, like its presentation of other facts on its website, to dilute the truth. If they really wanted to help Gaza, groups like Ship to Gaza should advocate for the removal of Hamas and demand that any international aid be used for humanitarian and non-violent purposes in Gaza. Legitimate outrage of these groups should be directed at the waste of the vast sums of money given freely and unconditionally to the terrorists in Gaza, which results in the unprovoked targeting of innocent Israelis.

In addition to Iranian-backed Hamas in Gaza, Israel has to contend with Iranian-backed Hezbollah on its border with Lebanon. Various terrorist groups have been vying for control in Syria across from Israel's Golan Heights. Syria itself is in the midst of a civil war where it is estimated that well over 200,000 people have been killed. There are reports that the Iranian-backed Assad regime in Syria is again using chemical weapons on its people. Iran is belligerently gaining more and more control in the region and is seeking to become a nuclear-armed world power. IS, like Iran, is trying to establish an Islamic caliphate and is successfully expanding its reach. Radical Islamic terrorists are spilling innocent blood in Africa. These radical terrorists are killing innocent people of all religions across the globe. But to groups like Ship to Gaza, it is Israel's self-defense and self-preservation that are the world's greatest injustices.

Contrary to the claims of Ship to Gaza and similar organizations, from what we have witnessed repeatedly over time, the ending of the naval blockade and building of a new seaport would not help Palestinians in Gaza, but rather would make it easier for Iran to accomplish its express mission of annihilating Israel. Instead of having to make an effort to smuggle illegal arms to Hamas like it does now, Iran simply would be able to put them on cargo or military ships and dock the ships at the port. Iran also would be able to import terrorist fighters into Gaza via the port. The same risks would exist from the numerous other terrorist groups. And this is not just hypothetical. Israel has intercepted illegal arms transfers and terrorists by sea in the past. Interestingly, Saudi Arabia recently imposed a blockade on Yemen specifically to prevent shipments of arms from Iran to Yemen's Houthi rebels. The people of Yemen have been devastated by this blockade. But there do not appear to be any Ships to Yemen.

The thought of connecting Gaza and the West Bank to provide for a Palestinian passageway is frightening. That passageway would cut right across Israel. There would be no more need for tunnels as the terrorists would just be invited in. There are very good reasons why Israel has a border fence and strategic land crossings with the Palestinians. Israel has learned the hard way at the hands of terrorists and murderers of its innocent civilians that there is a real need to restrict Palestinian access into Israel. It is now feeling the effects of terrorism in Jerusalem from Israeli Arabs. The answer is not to grant more access.

Neither Israel nor any other free nation should have to promote the well-being of another people, especially one that elects to be governed by a terrorist group, at the expense of sacrificing the safety and survival of its own people. Nor should terrorists be rewarded for their acts of violence. For Israel to take the actions that groups like Ship to Gaza would like to see would result in Israel's destruction. There are plenty of legitimate places in the world where these groups can send their ships to combat real abuse and oppression. I would be interested in seeing the reception their flotilla would receive in, let's say, Iran. Bon voyage.

Friday, May 8, 2015

Up In Flames

May 6, 2015

Barack Obama has a very interesting track record as President of the United States. On his watch, different parts of the world are going up in flames, in some places quite literally. His weak foreign policy, radical liberal policies and pro-Muslim ideology have spurred the chaos occurring in the Middle East and Africa. Vladimir Putin has stepped up Russia's aggression as well, as he does not expect a meaningful response from Obama. And now, the flames, again quite literally, have been ignited (or reignited) in America as well.

Obama's supporters will look to defend him no matter what he does or does not do. No matter what he says or does not say. But the facts are the facts. Under Obama, Iran has significantly increased its regional aggression. Most recently, the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels overthrew the American-backed government in Yemen, which Obama had declared to be a successful model for counterterrorism. Iran can now stake its flag in San'aa, the capital of Yemen, which is the latest Middle Eastern capital to be claimed by Iran. It joins the capitals of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, as well as Iran's own capital. Iran also has its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, on Israel's borders and is expanding its terrorism reach. Iran is taking more aggressive action in strategic regional waterways, threatening global shipping and oil supplies.

One would think that Obama, who also is on target to allow Iran to legitimately obtain nuclear weapons over time, is dedicated solely to having Iran establish an Islamic caliphate on his watch. But his policies also have allowed IS to flourish in the region and compete with Iran to establish the Islamic caliphate. IS too has expanded the scope of its terrorist activities and has received a wink and a nod from Obama. What happened to the coalition of 62 countries fighting IS? It is not exactly like the Obama Administration has been sitting back because of IS' lack of success. The only good thing that could be said about the threat posed by IS is that it is not as severe as that posed by Iran.

Obama and his Administration have emboldened both Iran and IS, causing many places around the world to go up in flames. Even the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government on its own people, including children, was met by Obama weakness. Obama reserves his strength, ire and condemnation for Israel. As terrorism, killing and slaughter are being spread globally by radical Islamic terrorists, Obama is more concerned about trying to vilify Israel, the one beacon of liberty and stability in the region. It is stunning that with all of the real pain suffered by one people at the hands of another people around the world, Obama is most concerned with the distractions of the Palestinians in their conflict with Israel.

Obama and his Administration should stop obsessing about Israel and start focusing on the dangers posed by radical Islamic terrorists, including in America. Rather than trying to find fault with our best ally in the Middle East, which shares our interest in combatting radical Islamic terrorism, he should divert his attention away from Israel and to the terrorists. Fundamental Islamic terrorist acts and threats are increasing in this country. But on these, Obama is pathetically silent. This despite the fact that the terrorists would love to cause this country to go up in flames.

Obama's far-left domestic policies also have helped ignite flames on American soil. It is on Obama's watch that there is growing civil unrest in this country. Baltimore is just the latest example. The death of Freddie Gray, a Baltimore resident, under suspicious circumstances while in police custody brought on the usual Obama diatribe. Despite the fact that the police commissioner in Baltimore is black and blacks comprise 40% of its police force, and that half of the cops involved in the death of Mr. Gray are black, Obama latched on to the immediate accusations that racism was the real cause of Mr. Gray's death. To be clear, if the police personnel involved are guilty, they should be punished for their crime. But we do not have all of the facts yet and they are entitled to due process. Mr. Obama should reserve his comments on racism until we know more. He has been premature with his inflammatory statements on race numerous times in the past, including in a similar situation in Ferguson, Missouri. He does this because he believes that racism in police forces is not an issue that is limited to Baltimore, but rather is a national problem. A problem that he says dates back a long period of time. "This is not new. It's been going on for decades." As if there has not been any changes in race relations in America in decades. This coming from the first black President.

Obama also claims that the entire country needs to do some "soul-searching", as if everyone in America is somehow complicit in a crime. His fix, besides admonishing Americans, is to continue, actually expand, liberal entitlement programs in minority communities and to throw more and more hard-earned tax dollars at the problem. He ignores the fact that much of Baltimore's leadership, including its mayor and prosecutor (and police commissioner), are black and Republicans have not governed in Baltimore in decades. He disregards the fact that Baltimore has had a prolonged economic slide notwithstanding all of the money that has been spent trying to help the minority community. Instead of preaching morals to Americans, he should admit that his liberal entitlement programs simply do not work. They have not worked in Baltimore or in minority communities throughout America, despite those communities being the beneficiaries of trillions of dollars of aid since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was announced in 1964.

Obama also only takes one side on the issue. He looks past the fact that the rate for violent crime by minorities in Baltimore, as in most minority communities, is much higher than the national average. The unemployment rate for minorities in Baltimore also is far above the national average. In Baltimore, there are over 16,000 abandoned homes and buildings. Although a disproportionate amount of money has been spent on education in Baltimore, a high percentage of its minority residents lack a high school degree. Rather than encouraging hard work and success, Obama's liberal entitlement programs have the perverse result of creating a sense of entitlement. Residents of minority communities come to rely on these entitlements. Yet, according to Obama, it is not the minority community, but rather only American society at large that is to blame.

Obama is much more in his comfort zone blaming American society for all of his perceived injustices against minorities. Why not, this fits neatly into his ideology. Occasionally, he will mention some corrective action that minority communities need to take on their own, but, at most, he utters some brief, meaningless words. For example, about the violence in the aftermath of the situation in Baltimore, he said he was not making any excuses for the riots and destruction, but then he proceeded to do just that. He refuses to sincerely advocate for law enforcement and acknowledge their tremendous contribution to this country. He also refuses to connect the increased danger to the police in high-crime neighborhoods. His words and actions incite violence and destruction, which he tolerates. This has resulted in anarchy on American streets. American law enforcement was told to stand down in Baltimore, which led to numerous injuries to cops and reporters and wide-scale damage to property. Looting, arson and robbery were condoned. Baltimore, like Ferguson, was set aflame. Inexcusably, approximately 37,000 people were held hostage in Camden Yards after a Baltimore Orioles baseball game and other games had to be postponed and then played without any fans in attendance. This is a total disgrace. This is Obama's America.

To be clear, the chaos occurring around the world, including in America, is happening on Obama's watch. His far-left foreign policy has helped strengthen radical Islamic terrorism abroad. As it is being left unchallenged, that terrorism is becoming more readily apparent in America and it likely will try to make a home here. Obama's outspokenness against American society and law enforcement have helped incite the anarchy we have witnessed on American streets. Despite any liberal attempts to spin these events differently, make no mistake, the flames incinerating various parts of the world are Obama's. Instead of trying to put them out, he excels at fueling the fires.

Am Yisrael Chai

Sunday, May 3, 2015

The Art of the Bad Deal

May 3, 2015

When negotiating the terms of an agreement, people aim to achieve the best deal possible for the side they represent. The goal is to reach a good deal, if not better. A person who is able to do this successfully is praised as a good negotiator and may even write a book on the subject. In President Obama's case, a book can be written on the art of a bad deal. Obama's skill to negotiate a bad deal in the area of foreign policy is well-illustrated by the framework agreement and current negotiations with Iran on a deal involving its nuclear program.

The Iran debacle is not the only example of Obama's ability to negotiate a bad deal. Although he does not represent Israel in its negotiations with the Palestinians with respect to the so-called peace process and two-state solution, he has the ability to strongly influence the process. And despite his frequent claims and assurances to be acting in a manner that is in Israel's best interests, his true words and actions will cause any deal that the Israelis enter into with the Palestinians to be a bad deal for Israel.

How is Obama so successful at negotiating a bad deal? He is a master manipulator and does not really negotiate in the best interests of the side he represents or claims to be helping. This is crucial, as he is masterful at convincing people (at least some people) otherwise. He is not afraid to lie to achieve the outcome he desires. He does not hesitate to make stuff up as he goes along as suits his radical liberal ideology. If he did act in good faith and in the best interests of the side he claimed to represent, we would not have such a poor framework agreement, and he would not be so determined to enter into a final bad deal, with Iran. Of course, Obama still has the opportunity to prove me wrong on the final agreement, but after having made one concession after another to Iran, I am confident that he will try to force us into a bad deal. 

Let's examine in detail how Obama excels at the art of a bad deal. As far as the nuclear deal with Iran is concerned, many people share my belief that Iran will emerge as the winner, and the United States and the other P5+1 countries, as well as the rest of the free world, as the loser. In fact, many of these people believe that Iran is making us look like a bunch of fools in the process. 

Thus far, Obama has allowed Iran, which entered the negotiations from a position of weakness, to dictate the most important terms of the deal. Iran was crippled by stringent economic sanctions and was desperate to negotiate for a deal. That should have given us the upper hand. Instead, to reward Iran just for coming to the negotiating table, Obama eased sanctions, immediately forfeiting our leverage. He has allowed negotiations to drag on slowly and has consented to their delay instead of insisting that they be closed out earlier. There is no reason it should have taken this long just to reach the point where we are at now. He has capitulated on one issue after another. And, at the end of the term of the agreement, Iran will be able to legitimately obtain the bomb. With all of Obama's concessions, Iran will be in a strong position to do so. Obama also refuses to condition the agreement on Iran ceasing its regional aggression and terrorist activities. In fact, he has allowed Iran to do as it pleases as he hides behind the excuse of the need for an agreement. He looks past Iran's history of deceit and explicit threats to the United States and makes excuses for the regime. Taking this as a whole, it should be clear that Iran, desperate for relief from economic sanctions, entered the negotiations from a position of weakness, but appears to be on the verge of emerging from the deal better financed, with tacit approval of its being able to continue its belligerence in the region and sponsorship of terrorism, and on a clear path to the bomb. The United States and other P5+1 countries, which entered the negotiations with leverage and from a position of strength, appear to be on the brink of memorializing the unthinkable. 

Obama also has turned against our Middle Eastern allies, chief among them Israel, in his quest for the deal with Iran. Statements like he has Israel's back (which continue to be made) and he will never allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons have proven to be patently false. Certain of his concessions refute his prior assurances. Obama recently criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for exaggerating Iran's breakout time to the bomb, but now, when it suits his needs and without any explanation, Obama says that Iran is even closer to the bomb than Mr. Netanyahu predicted. Obama also has very likely ignited a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Yet, he tells us that this is the best deal that we could hope to get at this point in time. 

Obama's deal-making with Iran can be compared to his role in threatening Israel regarding its peace process with the Palestinians. Despite previously making strong assertions as to Israel's rights and freedom to negotiate with the Palestinians, particularly when he was looking to secure the Jewish vote and to allay the fears of various Jewish organizations, his true colors now seem to be coming out. One would expect that Israel, like the P5+1 countries, would be negotiating from a position of strength on its conflict with the Palestinians. Israel has Biblical history, modern history and current events on its side. But leverage and positions of strength are easily flip-flopped when Obama is involved. 

For starters, pressuring Israel to release Palestinian prisoners, murderers and terrorists among them, just to get the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table is both dangerous and wrong. The argument that this benefits Israel because it could help to finally resolve the conflict is illustrative of the problem. This warped logic presumes that Israel alone will benefit from peace because the Palestinians will be free to keep on killing innocent Jews until then. Why else would it be incumbent upon Israel to take one-sided action in a two-state solution? 

Obama also has been vocal in calling for a return to 1967 borders and preventing Israel from expanding territories for Jews even in areas that Israel is supposed to retain after a final agreement. Obama is calling for a divided Jerusalem, part of which would serve as the Palestinians' capital, despite previous assurances to the contrary. In short, he has been the Palestinians' best negotiator, making demands on Israel that even they had not been making. 

Obama's demands are one-sided; he does not ask the Palestinians to make any concessions. He does not call for the Palestinians to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, a key point for Israel. The Palestinians want to establish an independent Palestinian state devoid of any Jews, yet insist on allowing millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return not to the new Palestinian state, but to Israel. Instead of dismissing this fantasy outright, Obama has allowed the Palestinians to refuse to accept that Israel would be a Jewish state in a two-state solution. Obama morally equates Palestinian terrorism with Israel's right to defend itself, which could not have been made any more apparent than in Israel's defensive war with Hamas last summer. He refuses to acknowledge the existential threat to Israel that would result if it surrendered more land for elusive peace as radical Islamic terrorists are already on Israel's narrow borders. He ignores the fact that Israel tried this experiment with the Palestinians by unilaterally and unconditionally withdrawing from Gaza and it failed miserably. Instead of peace, Israel receives thousands of rockets and missiles aimed at its citizens from the Palestinians. He does not want Jews to live in Arab sections of East Jerusalem, but fails to acknowledge the rights of Arabs to live anywhere in Israel. 

Obama's statements about dividing Jerusalem to ensure rights and access to all religions is absurd, even by his standards. In the entire Middle East, freedom to worship at religious sites is nowhere greater than in Israel. Incredibly, Jews do not even have governing rights to the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, in Jerusalem, the holiest city in Judaism, in Israel, the one and only Jewish country. That Muslims (and in practice the Palestinians) exclusively control this site is an affront to Jews. Obama should focus on the abuse Jews have to endure when they pray at the Kotel (The Western Wall) from Muslims. He should concern himself with the harassment of Jews by Muslims when they go to the Temple Mount and the fact that Jews are not even allowed to pray there. Just moving their lips is deemed offensive to Muslims. Obama also is silent on the abuse Christians have to endure from Muslims, inside and outside of Israel. How does Obama reconcile this? He cannot. 

As if Obama's pressure on Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians does not paint a bleak enough picture for Israel, we also need to tie in the deal that Obama is promoting with Iran to allow it to obtain nuclear weapons over time. Iran will benefit from economic sanctions relief, a good part of which may come right after the deal is signed. This would help finance Iran's continued aggression in the region and terrorist activities, including through its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, which are on Israel's borders. There are reports of Iran sending Hezbollah and Hamas increasing supplies of sophisticated missiles. And this is with a struggling Iranian economy. With the lifting of economic sanctions and set on a path to legitimately pursue nuclear weapons over time, Iran will be free and emboldened to pursue its goal of annihilating Israel and wiping it off the map. 

Obama's pattern of behavior on the Iranian deal and his pressure on Israel to force it into a two-state solution without a peace partner fit perfectly into Obama's broader pro-Muslim ideology. I fear, taking Obama at his word with his recent threats, that he will ratchet up the pressure on Israel. Looking at these two situations from the perspective of fairness, or good and evil, or right and wrong, one would know how good deals would play out. Given where we are now, we are headed for very bad deals, deals that threaten the United States, Israel and the rest of the free world. There is a master manipulator at the helm who excels at the art of the bad deal.