Israel Has Three Days Left to Save the World

Just as we revere our parents and grandparents as the greatest generation for defeating the forces of evil in their victory over the Nazis and the axis powers, our children and grandchildren will despise us for leaving them held hostage to nuclear rogue regimes and their proxies (Hamas, Hezb'allah, etc.).

It has come to this, reporting on the play by play as we catapult towards catastrophe. Israel is our only hope as the post-American president is aiding and abetting a nuclear Iran. Barack Obama is enabling Iran’s Islamic bomb, is inveterately hostile to Israel, and generally appears intent on turning America’s historical enemies into friends and friends into enemies.

 In a breathtaking surrender to Russia in August 2009, Obama abandoned our allies Poland and the Czech Republic, scrapping their missile-defense shield for Russian cooperation in stopping the Iranian bomb.

Former
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told Israel Radio today that
there are only three days left for Israel to attack Iran if it wants to stop the
Islamic Republic from manufacturing nuclear weapons.

On Friday, Russia announced that on
August 21st, it will start loading nuclear fuel into the Bushehr reactor.
Bushehr is Iran's first atomic power station. Bolton said that once the reactor,
also built by Russia, becomes operational on Friday, it will be too late to
attack, because the attacking it would result in fallout of radioactive material
as far as the Persian Gulf and hurt Iranian
civilians.

Ostensibly Obama made a deal with Russia: he would scrap the missile-defense plans for Eastern Europe in exchange for Russian help in blocking Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. The silence in the media on this catastrophic failure is deafening. Bomb meet boob.

It was stunning in its betrayal of good, reliable allies who had unfalteringly stood by us. The immediate effect was the weakening of American allies. Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton commented: “I think this is a near catastrophe for American relations with Eastern European countries and many in NATO. It was the kind of unilateral decision that the Bush administration was always criticized for, and I think the clear winners are in Russia and Iran.”

What's to be done? Does Israel dare save herself  (and the free world) in exchange for life and crushing world condemnation? If only it were that simple.

As evidenced in my book, Obama surrounds himself with antisemtic advisers and Israel haters.

Obama adviser Brzezinski even called for the United States to protect
Iran from an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. “We are
not exactly impotent little babies,” he declared in a September 2009
interview. If the Israelis struck Iran, he said, “they have to fly over
our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?”
Brzezinski advocated military action against Israel to stop it from
striking Iran: “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have
the choice of turning back or not.”

From my book The Post American Presidency:

Samantha Power

Some say, of course, that Barack Hussein Obama should not be held responsible for associations he made years or even decades ago. It’s unclear why that should be if he has never adequately renounced or repudiated these associations. But even if he has in some cases, as a candidate and as president he has surrounded himself with advisers who have distinguished themselves by their anti-Israel positions.
One Obama foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, resigned from the Obama campaign team under fire in March 2008 after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.” Obama never seemed fazed by her calling in a 2002 interview with Harry Kreisler of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley for military action against Israel to secure the creation of a Palestinian state.

Power said that establishing a Palestinian state would mean “sacrificing – or investing, I think, more than sacrificing – billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence.” She said that this would “require external intervention.”
Many observers quite reasonably concluded that in this Power meant that the United States should invade Israel in order to secure the creation and protection of a Palestinian state. Confronted about this during the Obama presidential campaign, Power made no attempt to explain or excuse her statement: “Even I don’t understand it…This makes no sense to me….The quote seems so weird.” She assured supporters of Israel that she did not believe in “imposing a settlement.”

Power’s anti-Israel bias was not limited to that one statement. When the much-hyped “Jenin Massacre” of 2002 turned out to have been a Palestinian propaganda operation rather than an actual massacre, Power remained skeptical, saying at a conference funded by George Soros: “I was struck by a [New York Times] headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: ‘Human Rights Reports Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin.’ The second paragraph said, ‘Oh, but lots of war crimes did.’ Why wouldn’t they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?” National Review’s Michael Rubin commented: “It is questionable whether any war crimes occurred in Jenin, except of course the war crimes associated with Palestinian assembly of suicide bombs which Palestinian terrorists — not uniformed officials — used to target civilians on buses and elderly in hotels. But, that does not seem to be what Samantha Power means.”
Indeed not. New Statesman noted in March 2008 that Power “has been fiercely attacked by bloggers objecting to her questioning the US’s axiomatic support for Israel on security matters. ‘So much of it is about: “Is he going to be good for the Jews?”’”
She didn’t explain what she found wrong with that question.

Yet despite all this, Barack Obama hired her first for his campaign team and then rehired her in November 2008 as part of his transition team for the State Department; then once in office, he appointed her to the National Security Council as Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights. And August 2009 he demonstrated his confidence in Samantha Power yet again. The White House announced that she would “coordinate the efforts of the many parts of the U.S. government on Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), including the Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Defense.”

Robert Malley

The anti-Israel statements of Robert Malley, whom Obama tabbed for an important mission right after he was elected president, were even worse than Power’s.
Early on in his campaign, Obama named Robert Malley one of his primary foreign policy advisers – to the immediate consternation of Israeli officials. One Israeli security official noted in February 2008: “We are noting with concern some of Obama’s picks as advisers, particularly Robert Malley, who has expressed sympathy to Hamas and Hizbullah and offered accounts of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that don’t jibe with the facts.”

However, this turned out to be only a trial separation, not a divorce. Meeting with an Islamic terrorist group was not a disqualifying resume item for Barack Hussein Obama. Only six months after Obama had dismissed him, the now-President Obama sent Malley to Egypt and Syria. “The tenor of the messages,” explained an aide to Malley, “was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests.”
Malley was a good choice to convey such a message. He has coauthored opinion pieces with a former adviser to Yasir Arafat and has repeatedly called upon the U.S. to hold talks with Hamas. His anti-Israel record was perfect; he even blamed Israel for the failure of the Camp David talks of 2000, when Arafat shocked the world by rejecting an offer to establish a Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem and beginning another bloody intifada instead. When Hamas won the Palestinian elections in the winter of 2006, Malley explained the result as stemming from “anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, Western lecturing and, most recently and tellingly, the threat of an aid cut off in the event of an Islamist success.”

Jihadist intransigence and Islamic anti-Semitism? Malley had nothing to say about either.
Malley has continued to defend Hamas and call for its acceptance by the U.S., saying that “a renewed national compact and the return of Hamas to the political fold would upset Israel’s strategy of perpetuating Palestinian geographic and political division.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski

In devising plans to frustrate Israel’s self-defense, however, Malley had nothing on Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Adviser during the Carter Administration. Obama consulted Brzezinski for advice during his campaign, calling the octogenarian Brzezinski “one of our most outstanding scholars and thinkers” and saying that he was “someone I have learned an immense amount from.”

This came at a time when Brzezinski raised eyebrows with his claim that the “Jewish lobby” in the United States was “too powerful.” Brzezinski complained that “there is a McCarthy-ite tendency among some people in the Jewish community. They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonising. They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel.”

Yet Brzezinski himself was not an unwavering advocate of a “compromised peace” – he recognized the need for force under some circumstances. But he envisioned that force being used not in Israel’s defense, but against Israel. Bizarrely, he even called for the United States to protect Iran from an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. “We are not exactly impotent little babies,” he declared in a September 2009 interview. If the Israelis struck Iran, he said, “they have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” Brzezinski advocated military action against Israel to stop it from striking Iran: “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not.”
Brzezinski, of course, holds no official position in the Obama Administration, and there was no indication in the fall of 2009 that Obama was contemplating calling out the Air Force against Israel if it tried to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations. But Brzezinski’s was not the only anti-Israel voice associated with Obama. There was Power. There was Malley. Before that, there were Wright and al-Mansour and the rest.
There was no comparable group of defenders of Israel around Obama.

Rosa Brooks

As if Power, Malley, and Brzezinski weren’t enough, there were more haters of Israel on the Obama team as well.

Obama named Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks as an advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy. Brooks is venomously anti-Israel. During Israel’s defensive action in Gaza in January 2009, Brooks wrote an op-ed in the Times entitled, “Israel can’t bomb its way to peace.” Stephen A. Silver of the media watchdog Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America pointed out that while Brooks gave the number of Palestinian casualties in this conflict, she didn’t mention that most of these were combatants, not innocent civilians. “She also takes no interest,” noted Silver, “in the fact that Hamas fires missiles at Israeli civilians from the midst of Palestinian population centers – a double war crime specifically intended by Hamas to manufacture Palestinian civilian casualties for public relations purposes whenever Israel tries to defend itself from Hamas terror.”

Silver also observed that “Brooks does not bother to note that Israel goes to such lengths to avoid civilian casualties that it often gives up the element of surprise in order to warn Palestinian civilians who may be in harm’s way before Israel targets nearby Hamas terrorists.”

Like Brzezinski, Brooks also indulged in the familiar anti-Semite’s complaint: that a few simple criticisms of Israel got one slapped with accusations of…anti-Semitism. (Neither, of course, seemed inclined to own up to how they had prejudged the case and stacked the deck against Israel.) Brooks enunciated this complaint in this way in 2006: “Publish something sharply critical of Israeli government policies and you’ll find out. If you’re lucky, you’ll merely discover that you’ve been uninvited to some dinner parties. If you’re less lucky, you’ll be the subject of an all-out attack by neoconservative pundits and accused of rabid anti-Semitism.”

Chuck Hagel

Former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would probably have agreed with Brooks. According to the Jerusalem Post, he was “one of a handful of senators who frequently didn’t sign AIPAC-backed letters related to Israel and the peace process during his time in the Senate and opposed additional sanctions on Iran.”
Apparently, like Brooks, he has faced criticism for these anti-Israel stances – and has complained that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people.”
Yet Hagel himself doesn’t seem to have been particularly intimidated. In the Senate he amassed a significant track record as one of a hardline hater of Israel who would not affix his name even to the most innocuous pro-Israel initiative. When all but four Senators signed a pro-Israel statement in 2000, Hagel was one of the holdouts. The next year, he was again among the few Senators – eleven this time – who refused to add their names to a statement urging George W. Bush not to meet with Yaser Arafat as long as the Palestinian groups under his control continued to pursue violence against Israel. In 2005, Hagel, along with 26 other senators, opposed a call to the Palestinian Authority to disqualify terror groups from participating in elections. And when twelve senators wrote to the European Union in 2006 asking that the EU join the U.S. in classifying Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, Hagel was once again one of the few.
Hagel wasn’t intimidated, and Barack Hussein Obama wasn’t either. In late October 2009 he appointed Hagel co-chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board. And in a particularly piquant symbolic move, the appointment was announced at J Street’s first annual conference – by Steve Clemons of George Soros’s New America Foundation.
And the effect of all this showed in his policies, beginning almost immediately when he took office.

It bodes ill for Jews just how comfortable and at ease Obama obviously is with proud anti-Semites and Israel haters. Obama has appointed all these people, but has concealed their true natures.

Then There is Obama Himself

Read the rest here……………

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here