► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘J Street’

The phantom anti-Jewish establishment

by Mojambo ( 105 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, History, Israel, Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at March 11th, 2014 - 7:00 am

As someone wrote “these people are not Jews, they are Marxists whose ancestors happened to be Jewish”. They will be as forgotten as all the  other “Jews:” who worked to destroy the Jewish State.

by Daniel Greenfield

Alan Alda’s wife signed a letter denouncing the newly elected left-wing mayor of New York for doing AIPAC’s bidding. The Sandinista supporter had been accused of many things until then, but being an Israeli stooge wasn’t one of them. Signing the letter, along with the spouse of that guy from MASH, were Martha Weinman Lear, the wife of the cousin of liberal producer Norman Lear,  Eve Ensler of the Vagina Monologues and diet guru Jane Hirschmann author of Overcoming Overeating who took a break from obsessing over food to sail on a Jihad cruise to Gaza.

Signing on to the attack on Bill de Blasio for being a dirty Zionist were such faded celebrities of the literary left as Erica Jong, who hasn’t written a single book that anyone can name in the forty years since Fear of Flying first came out and Gloria Steinem, who peaked around that same time.

These familiar names of the Manhattan cocktail party circuit who grind their teeth every time they hear Netanyahu’s name, give way to the professional activists, the board members of the toxic American Jewish World Service, the Nathan Cummings Foundation and Dorot, the Rabbis for Gaza and Rabbis for Obama and the men and women like Peter Beinart of Open Zion and Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace who have built their lives around the war on Israel as much as any Islamic Jihadist tinkering with a Kassam rocket in Gaza.

Joining them was Kathleen Peratis who, according to her Nation bio is a “longtime peace activist” who repeatedly calls for boycotting Israel despite traveling there “at least twice a year for the past twenty years.” It’s unclear how she combined the two, perhaps she made sure not to buy anything from Jews while she was in Israel.

Their names are equally familiar to a smaller circle of those who fight for and against Israel and their signatures are as predictable as snowstorms in winter.

The radical clergy sign on; Rachel Brown Cowan, a Unitarian who married a Jewish writer for the Village Voice, added “Rabbi” to her name and has been attacking the Jewish State non-stop after her husband’s death, Rolando Matalon, who has yet to find a Latin American Marxist group he wouldn’t embrace,  Ellen Lippmann, a BDS supporter and Sharon Kleinbaum, a lesbian supporter of the Fast for Gaza that aids and abets the not particularly pro-lesbian Hamas.

Reading these names feels like reviewing the membership of a small familiar club. Everyone knows everyone else and everyone in the club hates Israel.

Between Erica Jong and Alice Kessler-Harris (the biographer of Anti-Israel Communist playwright Lillian Hellman, whom Kessler described as having a “streak of Jewish anti-Semitism”) is Peter A. Joseph who pays for this whole dance, funding everything from Peter Beinart’s Open Zion to the Manhattan JCC whose anti-Israel turn has led to a pitched battle among members.

[……]

The Israel Policy Forum put out a letter in support of Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, despite his ties to the Iran Lobby, signed by Peter A. Joseph, hedge fund manager Neil Barsky, Marcia Riklis, the daughter of corporate raider Meshulam Riklis (not by his second wife Pia Zadora), Jack C. Bendheim, the president of a company that once dumped toxic waste in a Connecticut town, and Risa A. Levine, apparently a real estate lawyer from New York.

[……..]

Hating Israel has become a small petty club for the wealthy left and the Israel Policy Forum allows assorted obscure figures to assert their status by denouncing things or demanding things under the banner of an organization whose only asset is the wealth of a few private equity backers.

The Jewish Anti-Israel left likes to pretend that it’s a grassroots movement whose voice is being squelched by some nebulous Jewish establishment when in reality it is an unelected establishment using its wealth and lingering fame to shout over the majority of American Jews who support Israel.

These sons, daughters, stepdaughters, wives and nieces of famous people, fading Feminist writers, Wall Street millionaires trying to buy social relevance, hippie social scientists who hit it big with books about food, sex or childrearing, radical rabbis holding forth to congregations who believe in religion as little as their preachers, are a phantom establishment, community leaders without a community except their own mutual approbation.

The Jewish Anti-Israel left is a phantom establishment of family foundations that direct money to networks of organizations that use the money to hire personnel and send out press releases to their own former staffers working for newspapers who then write about them maintaining the illusion of churning activity, when in reality all that is happening is that money is being moved around.

Anti-Israel Wall Street figures hire Anti-Israel activists to denounce the Jewish establishment for not paying enough attention to them. Family foundations run by privileged leftists send American activists to Israel to set up front groups to protest against something or other. They hold dinners where the nieces and nephews, the boycotters and the faded stars of the left listen to the activists that they pay tell them that any day now, American Jews will finally come around to their point of view.

[…….]
Every few weeks the Israel Policy Forum churns out another letter headlined “Prominent Jews Urge Someone or Other To Do Something” signed by the guy who made a Koch documentary, Pia Zadora’s stepdaughter, a hedge funder, another hedge funder, the guy whose company left drums of toxic waste in Connecticut, the Rabbi who loves the Sandinistas even more than Bill de Blasio and a retired Democratic congressman who attends the same cocktail parties.

The phantom establishment floats on a bubble of its own manufactured prominence. Its letter signers are important because they fund organizations that put out letters which they then sign. These antics are not limited to the Israel Policy Forum or even the United States.

A year after British comedian Stephen Fry appeared on a genealogy television show to trace his mother’s Jewish roots, he signed on to a letter by British Jews, a group that he had never considered himself a member of, declaring its “independence” from the British Jewish establishment. The list included the expected collection of fading feminist authors, Marxist playwrights, historians and philosophers, as well as radical sociologists, pop psychologists and professional activists.

The “coming out party” of Independent Jewish Voices consisted of non-practicing Marxist Jews who were notorious for hating Israel, the UK, industry, facts, mirrors and human civilization announcing that loudly in a letter that was covered by their media friends.

There is a long history of such letters going back to the founding of Israel, the names of forgotten self-proclaimed leaders mixing with a few more notorious figures whose unfortunate legacy has survived into this time. None of these letters however have counted as much as a bullet in the rifle of an Israeli soldier standing watch in the night.

American Jews who worry over these letters from the phantom establishment of the cocktail party ought to look back and see how futile the rantings of I.F. Stone, New Dealer Joseph Proskauer, the rabid Elmer Berger and FDR speechwriter Samuel Rosenman proved to be.

Before J Street or the Israel Policy Forum, there was Jewish Alternatives to Zionism  headed by “Rabbi” Elmer Berger who had claimed that the Communist revolution in the Soviet Union meant that Jews no longer needed “Palestine”.

Does anyone remember Lewis Affelder or Mr. and Mrs. Noel A. Buckner whose names appeared as sponsors on Jewish Alternatives to Zionism’s stationary? How many remember Mary Louise `Wheezie’ Gutman who collected English ceramics and owned a distillery? The wind of history has blown past their graves. Their names are smeared ink on yellowed paper while children play in the streets of Jerusalem.

The phantom establishment is rootless; it has no links to a people or to a religion. Its aims are destructive and like all destructive forces, it carries its own futility with it.

American Jews should contend with them, but should not be too impressed by them. Their kind has been at it for generations and, despite all the venom and fury, the boycotts and screeds, have made less of an impression on Israel than a single Jewish family in the hills of Shomron.

The phantom establishment is money and words. There is no blood in its veins or heart in its chest. It does not go on the way that the Jewish people do because it is not of them, only against them. When its anger is spent and its letters are signed, the children will play on in the streets and roads, the hills and fields of Israel, neither knowing nor caring that there was once a Jane Hirschmann, a Mrs. Noel A. Buckner, a Rachel Brown Cowan or a Rebecca Vilkomerson that sought to do them harm.

Read the rest – Letters from the Phantom anti-Jewish establishment

 

Obama’s freedom of action against Israel can be constrained

by Mojambo ( 103 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Egypt, IDF, Iran, Israel, Joe Biden, Palestinians, Syria, United Nations at September 27th, 2013 - 2:00 pm

Obama still does not get it –  Americans and their representatives support Israel not because they feel intiimdated by AIPAC,  but because they feel it is right to support that nation in its struggles against a genocidal opponent.

by Caroline Glick

US President Barack Obama’s rapidly changing positions on Syria have produced many odd spectacles.

One of odder ones was the sight of hundreds of lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee fanning out on Capitol Hill to lobby members of the House and Senate to support Obama’s plan to launch what Secretary of State John Kerry called “unbelievably small” air strikes against empty regime controlled buildings in Syria.

AIPAC officials claimed they were doing this because the air strikes would help Israel.

But this claim was easily undone. Obama and Kerry insisted nothing the US would do would have any impact on the outcome of the Syrian civil war. This was supposed to be the strikes’ selling point. But by launching worthless strikes, Obama was poised to wreck America’s deterrent posture, transforming the world’s superpower into an international joke.

In harming America’s deterrent capabilities by speaking loudly and carrying an “unbelievably small” stick, Kerry and Obama also harmed Israel’s deterrent posture.

Israel’s deterrence relies in no small measure on its strategic alliance with the US.

Once the US is no longer feared, a key part of Israeli deterrence is removed.

Obama did not announce his intention to bomb empty buildings in Syria in order to impact the deterrent posture of either the US or Israel. He probably gave them little thought. The only one who stood to gain from those strikes – aside from Syrian President Bashar Assad who would earn bragging rights for standing down the US military – was Obama himself.

[…….].

So if the strikes were going to harm the US and Israel, why did AIPAC dispatch its lobbyists to Capitol Hill to lobby in favor of them? Because Obama made them.

Obama ordered AIPAC to go to Capitol Hill to lobby for the Syria strikes. He did so knowing that its involvement would weaken public support for AIPAC and Israel. Both would be widely perceived as pushing the US to send military forces into harm’s way to defend Israel.

Then, with hundreds of AIPAC lobbyist racing from one Congressional office to the next, Obama left them in a lurch. He announced he was cutting a deal with Russia and had decided not to attack Syria after all.

What did AIPAC get for its self-defeating efforts on Obama’s behalf? Obama is now courting Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in the hopes of making a deal that Iran will use as cover for completing its nuclear weapons program.

Such a deal may well involve ending sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and its central bank – sanctions that AIPAC expended years of effort getting Congress to pass.

And that’s not all. Monday, as Obama meets with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly in New York, Vice President Joe Biden will become the highest ranking administration official to date to address the J Street conference.
[………]

Sending Biden to headline at the J Street conference is an act of aggression against AIPAC. It also signals that Obama remains committed to strengthening the anti-Israel voices at the margins of the American Jewish community at the expense of the pro- Israel majority.

The question is why is AIPAC cooperating with Obama as he abuses it? Why didn’t they just say no? Because they couldn’t.

AIPAC is not strong enough to stand up to the president of the United States, particularly one as hostile as Obama.

Not only would it have suffered direct retaliation for its refusal, Obama would have also punished Israel for its friend’s recalcitrance.

In a recent interview with The Times of Israel, Eitan Haber, late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin’s closest aide, made the case that Israel is powerless in the face of White House pressure. Haber claimed that only when a person becomes prime minister does he understand “to what extent the State of Israel is dependent on America. For absolutely everything… we are dependent on America.”

Haber noted that the US can collapse every aspect of Israel. From this he concluded that no Israeli leader can stand up to Washington.

Haber recalled a menacing conversation Rabin had with then-US secretary of state James Baker during which Baker became angry at Rabin.

“America is right even when it is wrong,” Baker admonished the Israeli leader.

Haber warned that Israel cannot stand up to the US even when the US is behaving in a manner that endangers Israel. “It’s possible that they don’t understand the region and that they are naïve and stupid,” he said, “But they are America.”

Haber said rightly that that the White House can destroy Israel’s economy, defenses and diplomatic position any time it wishes. In the past administration threats of economic sanctions or delays in sending spare parts for weapons platforms have been sufficient to make Israeli leaders fall into line.

For the past five and a half years Obama has dangled US diplomatic support at the UN Security Council over Israel’s head like the Sword of Damocles.

[…….]

The timing of the EU announcement that it was barring EU entities from forging ties with Israelis that operate beyond the 1949 armistice lines was revealing in this context. The EU announced its economic sanctions the day Kerry announced the start of negotiations between Israel and the PLO. The message to Israel was absolutely clear: Do what we order you to or you will face economic sanctions far more damaging.

Obama’s appointment of Samantha Power to serve as US ambassador to the UN was another signal of ill intent. Power became the object of fear and fury for Israel supporters after YouTube videos of a 2002 interview she gave went viral during the 2008 elections. In that interview Power called for the US to send “a mammoth protection force” to Israel to protect the Palestinians from “genocide” that Israel would commit.  [……..]

And just after his reelection, Obama sent Power to the epicenter of international blood libels and attempts to outlaw the Jewish state.

Obama’s deal with Russia President Vladimir Putin was also a signal of aggression, if not an act of aggression in and of itself. The ink had barely dried on their unenforceable agreement that leaves Iran’s Arab client in power, when Putin turned his guns on Israel. As Putin put it, Syria only developed its chemical arsenal “as an alternative to the nuclear weapons of Israel.”

The Obama administration itself has a track record in putting Israel’s presumptive nuclear arsenal on the international diplomatic chopping block. In 2010 Netanyahu was compelled to cancel his participation in Obama’s nuclear weapons conference when he learned that Egypt and Turkey intended to use Obama’s conference to demand that Israel sign the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty.

Obama’s behavior demonstrates his bad intentions. So Israelis and our American supporters need to ask whether Haber is right. Is Israel powerless in the face of a hostile US administration? Let’s reconsider Obama’s decision to turn to AIPAC for support on Syria.

Why did he do that? Why did he turn to an organization he wishes to harm and order it to go to the mattresses for him? Obama turned to AIPAC primarily because AIPAC could help him. AIPAC hold sway on Capitol Hill.

Where does that power come from? Does AIPAC wield influence because it frightens members into submission? No.

AIPAC is powerful because it serves as a mouthpiece for the overwhelming majority of Americans. The American people support Israel. If something will help Israel, then most Americans will support it. Obama wanted Congressional support. He couldn’t win it on the merits of his feckless plan. So he sent in AIPAC to pretend that his strikes would benefit Israel.

Obama’s demand that AIPAC help him is reality’s response to Haber’s protestations of Israeli powerlessness.

Israel’s alliance with the US, upon which it is so dependent, was not built with America’s political or foreign policy elites. Saudi Arabia’s alliance with the US was built on such ties.

Israel’s alliance with the US is built on the American public’s support for Israel. And although Obama himself doesn’t need to face American voters again, his Democratic colleagues do. Moreover, even lame duck presidents cannot veer too far away from the national consensus.

It is because of this consensus that Obama has to send signals to Israel – like the EU sanctions, and Power’s appointment to the UN – rather than openly part ways with Jerusalem.

Obama is powerful. And he threatens Israel. But Israel is not as powerless as Haber believes. Israel can make its case to the American public.

And assuming the American people support Israel’s case, Obama’s freedom of action can be constrained.

For instance, on the Palestinian issue, Haber said Israel has to accept whatever Obama says. But that isn’t true. Netanyahu can set out the international legal basis for Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and explain why Israel’s rights are stronger than the Palestinians’.

The government can expose the fact that the demographic doomsday scenario that forms the basis of support for the two-state formula is grounded on falsified data concocted by the PLO.

Demography, like international law, is actually one of Israel’s strategic assets.

Then there is Iran.

Were Netanyahu to defy Obama and order the IDF to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, he would be pushing the boundaries of the US political consensus less than Menachem Begin did when he ordered the air force to destroy Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. He would also be pushing the US consensus less than Rabin did when he embraced Yasser Arafat in 1993.

No, Israel cannot say no to everything that Obama wishes to do in the Middle East.

And yes, it needs to make concessions where it can to placate the White House.

AIPAC’s decision to take a bullet for Obama on Syria may have been the better part of wisdom.

Israel has three-and-a-half more years with Obama.

They won’t be easy. And there is no telling who will succeed him. But this needn’t be a catastrophe. Our cards are limited. But we have cards. And if we play them wisely, we will be fine.

Read the rest – Obama’s power and it’s limitations

Jewish Orphans versus Muslim Prayer Rugs

by 1389AD ( 126 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Christianity, Islamic Supremacism, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, UK at October 7th, 2010 - 2:00 pm

The question is: Whose side is your clergy on?

Muslim Prayer Rugs and Jewish Orphans

(h/t: Gates of Vienna)

This is not about peace or tolerance, or pissed on rugs. It’s about feeding hate under the guise of tolerance.

By Daniel Greenfield – Monday, October 4, 2010

On a late summer evening, Omar Rivera stumbled over to a local mosque, clutching a beer bottle in his hand and looking for a place to answer nature’s call. He chose the Al-Imam Mosque and proceeded to urinate around its exterior, where there were apparently some Muslim prayer rugs lying around. Omar had committed what was a fairly commonplace act of vandalism in the city, public urination. When suddenly he became the poster child for the rise of a “New Islamophobia”.

Along with a drunken liberal arts student who slashed a Muslim cabbie, the media transformed poor Omar into the face of a new and terrible wave of hate directed against Muslims. Initial news stories claimed that he had called the mosque denizens, “Terrorists”, before peeing on their rug. The NYPD later explained that it had never happened, and that he never said anything for or against Muslims.

After a five-day drunk, Omar probably didn’t even know his own name by that point. Neither did Michael Enright, the cabbie slasher, who had a long history of drinking problems. After the attack, he sat down in the middle of traffic, rather than trying to make an escape. Rather than being motivated by any animus toward Muslims, Riviera and Enright were driven by their blood alcohol level and drinking problems. There was no wave of Islamophobia, just two drunk guys who needed to become Friends of Bill.

[…]

When infidels are murdered by Muslims, no one calls for an emergency summit. But when a Muslim prayer rug is pissed upon, everyone had better jump into the Dhimmimobile and denounce that rising wave of hate.

Meanwhile in support of the rugs themselves, J-Street collaborator, Rachel Barenblat of Velveteen Rabbi seized on the chance to promote herself by “passing the hat” and raised over a thousand dollars to replace the urine soaked rugs. At the same time as Rachel was passing the hat for the rugs, five people were murdered in Israel by Muslim terrorists. They left behind six orphans. Rachel Barenblat did not volunteer to “pass the hat” for them, because how can a few Jewish orphans compared to the sacred rugs of the Al-Imam Mosque? She didn’t even appear to acknowledge their murders. Unlike the rugs, they were non-people.

And so we are witness to the spectacle of an enlightened post-modern era, in which Jewish liberal clergy have decided that soiled rugs have more personhood than Jewish orphans.

[…]

The Egyptian Al-Iman Mosque or the Al-Marwa Center in Queens whose rugs were so horrifyingly bepissed, appears to be a satellite of the Brooklyn Islamic Center, operating mosques and a school as the Al-Iman Center. Here’s a sample of some of the tolerant teachings to be found on the Al-Iman website about who’s responsible for causing AIDS. If you guessed the Jews, congratulations. You win a nickel.

[…]

For bonus tolerance, their parent, the Brooklyn Islamic Center, was being fundraised for by highlighting the center as a way to drive Jews out of the neighborhood.

Read it all.

Also please visit Daniel Greenfield’s blog, Sultan Knish.

Beware of any Christian or Jewish clergy, or religious organizations, who profess “tolerance of Islam.” It’s all about pandering to Islam at the expense of their own faith. Such clergy are, so to speak, wolves in shepherd’s clothing.

Instead, support those clergy who stand up for Israel.

Telegraph UK: Methodist preacher to sue his own church over claim of anti-Israel bias

A Methodist preacher is preparing to sue his own church over claims it is using charitable donations to pursue a campaign of discrimination against Israeli Jews.

By Robert Mendick, Chief reporter
Published: 7:00AM BST 03 Oct 2010

The legal dispute has been prompted by a controversial resolution passed at the Methodist Conference which called for a boycott of some Israeli goods.

If the legal action is successful, it would likely bring to an end all similar campaigns that boycott Israeli goods and services.

David Hallam, who preaches in Methodist churches around Birmingham, has accused his own church of wasting funds to pursue a vendetta against Israel. There are no Methodist churches in either Israel or the Occupied Territories.

Mr Hallam, 62, a former labour MEP, said: “What I object to is money which I am putting on the collection plate on a Sunday being used to fund a political campaign against the Jewish state. This is both discriminatory and a misuse of a charity’s funds.

“The Methodist Church seems to think it has a God given right to tell Jews how to run their affairs. It is very disturbing we are getting involved in a territory where we don’t have any members or churches.”

Mr Hallam has recruited Paul Diamond, a barrister with expertise in human rights law and religious law, to bring the case.

Mr Diamond will argue that the Methodist resolution passed in the summer is in breach of European human rights law and a wide-ranging European Union directive on racism.

Read it all.


Obama’s diplomatic war with Israel (and American allies)

by Delectable ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Dhimmitude, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Progressives at April 8th, 2010 - 4:00 pm

ObamaChamberlain

In what can only be described as the middle finger to Israel, reliable sources have said that Obama seeks to “impose,” (via his “diktat”) a “peace plan” upon Israel, against its will.

This is a total disaster. But it does remind me of a horrific conversation I had when Obama was elected. I was at the “election party” held by a leading Jewish organization, which was a joint Jewish-diplomat party. 95% of the attendees adored Obama, and were cheering when he was elected. I, of course, was vomiting. In any case, I ended up speaking to an Israeli diplomat who works for the consulate. I told her my distress over Obama’s election, and she told me how happy she was. When I told her my fears, and of my rejection of the “two state solution,” she said that I don’t believe in “peace and hope.”  When I said that I believed in security now, peace later, she said that “this will lead to the end of Israel, which cannot survive just like that.” She then said that she sees “peace” as a “two state solution,” with NATO troops in the West Bank. I literally laughed in her face and walked away when she said that.

But it seems she will have her way, as will all the J-Streeters, who believe in similar delusions, that somehow you can appease the Jihad-minded ‘Palestinians’ by giving them land, vital to Israel’s security, and ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Jews from our homeland (while allowing Arabs to live wherever they want). This somehow is meant to lead to “peace, peace in our time!”

Please read this column in Commentary.

According to Cooper, the trigger for this latest instance of administration hubris was a recent gathering of former national-security advisers including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Samuel Berger, and Colin Powell, who were called in to consult with the president and his adviser General James L. Jones. The consensus (only Powell seems to have dissented) was that Obama must put forward his own scheme that would state exactly what the parameters of a peace deal would be. The idea is that peace can only be obtained by the United States imposing it on the parties. The plan is, of course, along the lines of past Israeli peace offers rejected by the Palestinians, plus extra Israeli concessions. The Palestinians give up their “right of return,” and Israel “would return to its 1967 borders,” including the one that divided Jerusalem, with only “a few negotiated settlements” as an exception. The supposed sweetener for Israel is that the United States or NATO, whose troops would be stationed along the Jordan River, would guarantee Israeli security.

Cheering from the sidelines is former Clinton staffer Robert Malley, who advised Obama on Middle East issues during the 2008 campaign until he was put aside to reassure Jewish voters worried about the Democrats having a man on staff who had served as an apologist for Yasser Arafat in the aftermath of the 2000 Camp David talks. For Malley, the logic of an American diktat is simple: “It’s not rocket science. If the U.S. wants it done, it will have to do it.”

Read it all.

And I have another comment to add.

Obama is so damned arrogant! He just thinks he can impose his “diktat” upon a sovereign ally, against its will, and just get whatever he wants, because he is Obama. Yet somehow, he doesn’t seem to want Iran to be de-nuclearized enough to “get it done.” The same logic of “well, the USA wants it, so it will happen,” doesn’t seem to apply to America’s enemies. Only its friends.

It will take a long time to recover from the sheer arrogance and audacity of the Obama administration. Why should anyone want to be an American ally again?

Between this, and the leak that Obama is not letting Israeli nuclear scientists travel to the USA, as well as an alleged arms freeze imposed upon Israel, it is clear that Obama is in diplomatic war with a strategic ally. This is a pattern of Obama’s, as we see how “well” he treats other allies, such as the UK (returning the Churchill bust), India (pressuring India and doing little about Pakistan), Honduras, Colombia, and Eastern Europe (reneging on middle defense), amongst so many others.

My humble proposal is for all of the USA’s former allies to work around the Obama administration while he is in office, as Obama is clearly hostile to human rights. I suggest forming a coalition of human rights-supporting countries (as well as semi-free countries under siege), such as Israel, India, certain European states (that are not totally dhimmified, such as Italy and France under Sarkozy, or Spain if it has Partido Popular, and Eastern European countries such as Poland the Czech Republic), countries in Africa battling Jihad, such as Ethiopia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia/New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Honduras. These countries will need the safety of a nuclear umbrella, and so they will sadly likely have to go to Putin’s Russia. Hey, this is already happening, as Avigdor Lieberman (born in Moldova) is reaching out to Russia. Heck, there are even efforts by Israel to reach out to China.

I foresee a realignment of world alliances due to Obama’s choice of foe over friend. It is the only way our former allies have a chance to battle against Jihad and its Progressive allies (Chavez/Castro/et. al.).