What Does Obama Gain by
Snubbing Israel?

Friday, 20 May 2011 09:28 AM

By Lowell Ponte

More ways to share…











More . . .

A |

Email Us |

Print |

Forward Article

American politics underwent a tectonic shift this week, a change
that apparently reflects a huge shift in political money and global power.

Breaking with more than half a century of bipartisan U.S. policy on the Middle
East, President Barack Obama appeared to turn against our longtime ally Israel.

He called for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be
based on Israel retreating to its pre-1967 borders, a boundary to be altered
only by “a few swaps” of land between the parties.

To those of us who have stood near the old Syrian cannon emplacements on the
Golan Heights looking down on the Galilee and Tiberius, or who have landed at
Israel’s international airport within 3 miles of the pre-1967 border, or who
understand that this would produce an indefensible Israel only 8 miles wide at
its narrowest point, Obama’s proposal seems bizarre.

As recently as 2005, President George W. Bush promised Israel, in exchange for
new concessions, that the United States would not press Israel to return to the
1967 borders.

This week President Obama broke that pledge by our government.

Obama’s new pressure on Israel, he knows, will alienate many American Jews.
Jews comprise only about 2 percent of America’s population, but this
mostly-Democratic bloc turns out to vote, and 80 percent in 2008 voted for him.

President Obama, I believe, would have risked losing a large share of Jewish
support only if he believed it could be offset elsewhere.

In 2008 he had an active outreach to America’s Muslim community. One of his
campaign workers stirred brief controversy by attending a gathering of radical
Islamist Muslims. The number of American Muslims is growing.

A greater concern, however, is the mountain of cash an American president who
turned against Israel might harvest from donors in oil-rich Muslim nations.

Obama is not the first Democratic presidential candidate to pander for Muslim

Sen. John Kerry during his 2004 presidential campaign received more than
$180,000, from Hassan Nemazee. This Iranian-American investor raised a cool
$250,000 for Al Gore in November 1995, and he and his family provided another
$150,000 to Democrats during the mid-1990s.

Six Nemazee family members and friends (including the caretaker of his 12-acre
Katonah, N.Y., estate) donated a total of $60,000 — the maximum legally allowed
— to President Bill Clinton’s legal defense fund.

In the closing days of 1998, Clinton named Nemazee his ambassador-designate to
Argentina. Hillary Clinton embraced the Muslim moneyman at a January 1999 White
House celebration of the Islamic holiday Eid.

The Senate refused to confirm the controversial nominee after a Forbes magazine
investigation exposed Nemazee’s questionable business dealings.

The Forbes investigation documented how, in order to get his hands on
public-employee pension fund monies allocated for minority managers, the
U.S.-born Nemazee had falsely claimed to be a Hispanic of Venezuelan background
and, on another occasion, an Asian-Indian.

Nemazee’s cynical lust for money could be frightening as well as laughable. He
is a founding board member of the Iranian American Political Action Committee
(IAPAC), which seeks to create friendly and lucrative business relationships
with the medieval theocratic dictatorship now ruling Iran.

Iran is, of course, an “axis of evil” nation that seeks to acquire
nuclear weapons and is on our State Department’s official list of nations that
support terrorism. Nemazee sought to enrich himself by further enriching the
power-mad Mullahs ruling Iran.

“The founding member of this group is Mr. Hassan Nemazee, an American of
Iranian origin and one discredited, and well-known agent of the Islamic
Republic, within the Iranian community in the United States,” wrote
opponent of the Iran regime Aryo B. Pirouznia of the Student Movement
Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran. “Their [IAPAC’s] agenda in
their own words is, ‘how relations between the Islamic Republic and the United
States can be restored in support of the Islamic Republic and the

From now until 2012 President Obama aims to raise $1 billion for his
re-election. In 2008 the Obama campaign raised more than $450 million, with
nearly half coming in contributions of less than $200 that were not required to
be reported by the donor’s name.

In some instances Obama staffers reportedly held handfuls of identical
envelopes full of such campaign contributions.

In 2012, do not weep over how much Jewish money the president might have lost.
Instead, watch to see how much Islamist and Muslim money Obama might gain by
turning against Israel.

Lowell Ponte is co-author, with Craig R. Smith, of “The Inflation
Deception: Six Ways Government Tricks Us, and Seven Ways to Stop It,” in
bookstores this June.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.


The insult to the
American soldier

By Wesley Pruden

“Can’t anybody here play this game?”

The president, revealing himself to be Barack Obungle,
has done what nobody else could have done, not even the spectacularly hapless
original New York Mets, who drove Casey Stengel to his famous cry of terminal

The White House converted a picture-perfect military
operation into a public-relations disaster that will be cited as what not to
do and how not to do it in flackery textbooks for a hundred years. Days after
the raid on Osama bin Laden’s “mansion” they still can’t get the “fact
pattern,” in the language of the White House, even close to straight.

Even that ubiquitous photograph of the president, the
secretary of state and assorted minions bravely watching the operation in
“real time” looks now to have been a “photo-op” taken after the fact. This is
the scene that the goofy John Brennan, the president’s anti-terrorism chief,
described as one of unbearable tension endured heroically by the magnificent
minions. Hillary seemed to be clutching her throat, choking back terror as
she watched the raid unfold, but now Leon Panetta, the chief of the CIA,
reveals that 24 minutes of the 40-minute video were “blacked out” by some
kind of electronic malfunction. Maybe she was only wishing she had ordered
pepperoni with extra cheese when the president sent out for pizza.

What a rollercoaster ride: Osama bin Laden engaged the
Seals in a firefight. Well, no, actually, it turns out he didn’t. But he did
seize a woman, probably one of his wives, to use as a human shield. Uh, well,
actually he didn’t do that, either. But he was armed, we know that for sure.
Ummm, no, not really. OK, but we’re positive that woman was killed. Uh, not
exactly. But we definitely, positively, absolutely know that Osama is dead.
We have the photographs to prove it and the public can see them. Er, no, not
quite. The president has them but you can’t see them. Everybody will just
have to take his word for it.

That won’t happen, either. There was a time when
everybody took a president’s word for everything. But nobody trusts the
government on anything any more. Lies have withered public patience. Too bad,
Mr. President, but you’ll have to show us the death certificate. No
reasonable man can doubt that Osama is dead, dead, dead, but we’re talking
now about the Middle East.

You might think the president would have rehearsed his
minions in a story, even if concocted, so everybody would tell it like it is.
The White House finally shut up with the explanation that “the fact pattern”
is still being evaluated. It’s only now dawning on the president that he has
done everything possible to guarantee an enduring worldwide harangue over
whether Osama is in fact dead, how he was killed, whether dumping the body in
the sea was wise, whether how he died violated the decencies of international
custom, and whether burial traditions of Shariah law were followed before
Osama became the ultimate fish dinner.

Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor and one of
the most distinguished criminal lawyers in the land, says “burying his body
at sea constituted the willful destruction of evidence.” The doubts that will
be contrived by Muslim red-hots would have been prevented if Osama’s body had
been subjected to the usual forensic testing, extensive examination of
entrance and exit wounds, and paraffin testing for gunpowder residue. “Dead
bodies,” he writes in an essay in the Wall Street Journal, “often talk more
loudly, clearly and unambiguously than live witnesses.” He notes that when a
Muslim or a Jew is murdered in the United States “religious considerations do
not trump civil circumstances.”

But the real offense of the Washington wimpery is
pushing a weakling’s canard against the military, asserting that the photograph
can’t be shown because it would make Muslim terrorists cross at us. But
surely the Army and the Navy can take care of themselves; soldiers, sailors
and Marines aren’t Campfire Girls. Can anyone imagine FDR and his generals
canceling D-Day because an invasion might infuriate the Germans? Or that a
Muslim terrorist will now salute an American soldier in Afghanistan and put
down his rifle and grenade launcher, telling him “we really appreciate your
president’s keeping that ugly photograph to himself.”

Americans come from Mars, so the witticism goes, and
Europeans are from Venus. But that doesn’t include this president and his
bungling minions. They’re weepy refugees from Pluto.