The latest scandal of the White House war against Israel
March 13, 2015: Bipartisan Senate panel probes whether the Obama administration funded effort to oust Israeli PM Netanyahu -
List of White House army of staffers now working in Israel to topple PM Netanyahu
Jeremy Bird, one of the White House operatives conspiring to oust PM Netanyahu
has a history of anti-Israel hate activism
Senator Ted Cruz asks for an investigation:
Has the White House launched
a political campaign against Israeli PM Netanyahu?
|Sen. TED CRUZ
Earlier this week, Americans opened the newspapers to discover that the Obama campaign team has deployed operatives, including 2012 Field Director Jeremy Bird, to Tel Aviv to try to unseat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu through an organization that receives taxpayer grants from the U.S. Department of State.
This follows a long string of hostile behavior that has only escalated with time.
In The Atlantic, “unnamed senior administration officials” have called Mr. Netanyahu a “chicken****” and bragged that it was now “too late” for him to take action to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability.
Last week, more anonymous sources vented to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that “Netanyahu spat in our face,” and vowing “there will be a price” for the Prime Minister’s accepting House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to come address Congress on the subject of Iran’s nuclear program.
An Obama campaign foreign policy advisor, Daniel Kurtzer, suggested to the New York Times that the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, should be “reprimanded or removed” for passing along the speaking invitation from Speaker Boehner.
And, let us not forget how eager the Obama Administration was to impose an unprecedented flight ban against Israel last year during its military operation against Hamas terrorists in Gaza.
At the time, I asked the simple question whether the Obama Administration was using the Federal Aviation Authority to launch an economic boycott against Israel. After their actions were questioned, they quickly lifted the ban.
Now, it is time for another simple question:
Has President Obama launched a political campaign against Prime Minister Netanyahu and his allies?
Prime Minister Netanyahu is a courageous leader, a symbol of Israel’s strength in the face of continued threats from Iran, and Americans who support Israel deserve to know whether their President is actively working to remove him from office.
And, even more troubling, whether U.S. tax dollars are being used to fund the campaign.
Specifically, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has reported that a U.S. taxpayer-funded non-profit organization called OneVoice is actively working with a campaign operation called Victory 2015 (V15)–working hand-in-hand with Obama field director Jeremy Bird–in an effort to influence the upcoming elections in Israel on March 17, 2015.
Today I, along with Congressman Lee Zeldin (R-NY), sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry to request an investigation into this funding and the propriety of U.S. taxpayer dollars being used to exert undue influence over a foreign election and to destabilize a long-standing ally.
In our letter we asked questions such as:
- “How much funding has the U.S. Government provided to OneVoice, PeaceWorks Network Foundation, and any connected initiatives, projects or subsidiaries?”
- “Who approved providing such funds?”
- “What were the specific reasons and terms for providing funds, and how are these funds specifically being spent?” .
- “Can the Department of State guarantee that none of these funds have been or will be used in the endeavor detailed above, namely the partnership with V15, or any similar effort to exert undue influence over the Israeli political process?”
All of this is even more perilous given the imminent threat posed by Iran’s active effort to acquire nuclear weapons capability.
The Administration should be crystal clear that we support the nation of Israel, and we should do everything necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran.
If the nuclear negotiations continue on the path they are on, they could prove to be the worst negotiations in our nation’s history. As a result, the possibility of Iran using nuclear weapons against Israel, or us, is unacceptably high.
There can be little doubt that once Iran has, as they have vowed, targeted what they call the “Little Satan,” Israel, the mullahs will turn their sights on the “Great Satan,” or the United States. The United States and Israel thus have a shared stake in keeping devastating weapons out of Iran’s reach.
The Obama White House should focus its grievances on the very real enemies we face, and not on our staunch allies.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is pursuing the deadliest weapons on the planet–weapons that our most senior and highly respected statesmen believe will be aimed squarely at Israel. This is the real problem, not Netanyahu’s next election.
President Obama should heed the warnings from three former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, and Madeline Albright about the dire challenges the United States faces around the globe—first and foremost the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
As Secretary Shultz noted on a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting on January 29th, Iran does not “want a nuclear weapon for deterrence, they want a nuclear weapon to use it on Israel.”
Given that threat, the last thing we should be doing is undermining Israel.
President Obama cannot claim to stand by our allies in Israel if his campaign operatives are actively campaigning against them.
REASONS FOR THE US PRESIDENT'S ANTAGONISM against Israeli PM Netanyahu -
HOW THE WHITE HOUSE MANIPULATES ISRAELI ELECTION and politics -
Foreign-financed organization ONE VOICE hired the US President's Field Director to run an anti-Netanyahu campaign -
And US Consulate in Jerusalem violates agreement by arming Arab thugs to protect the compound
Israel’s Likud Party has petitioned the country’s elections committee to ban the Obama-connected V15 (Victory 2015) organization that is allegedly working together with another group, OneVoice, in an attempt to sabotage Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chances at reelection.
Inside the White-House-related anti-Netanyahu campaign HQ in Israel
See long list of former Obama staffers now working to topple a foreign government
THE PRESIDENT'S ISRAEL PROBLEM
The Obama administration is angry with Israel. Here's the administration's house organ, the New York Times, this morning:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, after days of mounting tension, signaled on Wednesday how angry it is with Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted Republican leaders’ invitation to address Congress on Iran without consulting the White House.
The outrage the episode has incited within President Obama’s inner circle became clear in unusually sharp criticism by a senior administration official who said that the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, who helped orchestrate the invitation, had repeatedly placed Mr. Netanyahu’s political fortunes above the relationship between Israel and the United States.
The official who made the comments to The New York Times would not be named...
Of course, the official who last summer called Prime Minister Netanyahu a "coward" and a "chickens--t" would not be named either. But there is no reason to think those unnamed angry officials do not speak for an angry president.
The Obama White House usually prides itself on not getting angry. Its self-image is that it's cool, calm, and collected. And it doesn't get angry at, for example, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Obama White House understands and appreciates the complexities of the Islamic Republic's politics and history. It is only with respect to the Jewish state that the Obama White House is impatient, peremptory, and angry.
Why has Obama been lashing out? Because he had a dream. He was to be the American president who would preside at, and take credit for, the founding of a Palestinian state. Obama would be to Palestine what Harry Truman was to Israel. Now it's clear that's not going to happen during his presidency. Obama's frustrated that it's not going to happen. So he lashes out.
But Obama is still pursuing another dream: to be the American president who goes to Tehran, who achieves with Iran what Richard Nixon achieved with China. And he thinks Israel, and Israel's friends in the United States, stand in the way of achieving that dream. So he has another reason to be angry.
Of course, it's not Israel but reality that stands in the way of Obama's dreams. His Cairo speech, and the policies that followed from it, have crashed on the shoals of reality. Obama said in Cairo in June 2009, that he hoped that his administration would end the "cycle of suspicion and discord" between the United States and much of the Muslim world:
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. ...
But the truth is that Obama's policies haven't ameliorated the crisis in Islam or lessened the discord between Islam and the West. They have worsened the discord and exacerbated the crisis. Obama's policies of retreat have strengthened radical Islam, and undermined those in the Muslim world who do believe in "justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth."
It is Obama's failures that explain his anger—his failures, and his hopes that a breakthrough with Iran could erase the memories of failure and appear to vindicate his foreign policy. Israel stands in the way, he thinks, of this breakthrough. Prime Minister Netanyahu stands in the way. And so Obama lashes out.
It's of course unseemly. But it's also dangerous. Neville Chamberlain and the British establishment were far angrier with Winston Churchill, and much harsher in their attempts to discredit him, in the late 1930s when the dreams of appeasement were failing, than earlier, when hope for the success of appeasement was alive. When you think your policies are going to be vindicated, you ignore or dismiss critics. It's when you suspect and fear imminent failure that you lash out.
So we have an angry president, increasingly desperate for vindication of his failed foreign policy, accelerating both his appeasement of Iran and his attacks on Israel. The good news is that the Republican party and the conservative movement—and most of the American people—stand with Israel and against President Obama. Of major parts of the American Jewish community, on the other hand, one can say no such thing.
President Obama's feelings and attitude towards Israeli PM Netanyahu are palpable