The recent disclosures by Wikileaks prove that the Obama Administration, and its water carrier J Street, were dead wrong in repeatedly asserting that the only way to get Arab support for tough policies toward Iran’s nuclear weapons program is for Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. There are good reasons for Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians leading to a two state solution, but garnering Arab support against Iran is not one of them. The Wikileaks proved beyond any doubt that Israel’s Arab neighbors have a strong, independent basis for wanting to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power.
The recently released cables establish that Saudi Arabia was pushing the United States to bomb Iranian nuclear sites; these cables never mentioned the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Nor were the Saudis alone in calling for the United States to cut off the “head of the snake.” Other Arab nations were banging the drum for a military attack as well. Indeed there is evidence that the Saudis and Israelis—who have no diplomatic relations—have discussed military options against their common enemy.
Ever since the Obama Administration tried to put pressure on Israel by linking the end of the occupation to Iran, I have pointed out the absurdity of this linkage. But General David Petraeus, Secretary of State Robert Gates and Vice President Joe Biden have all insisted that the continuing occupation has made Arab states less willing to cooperate with the United States in preventing Iran from developing nuclear bombs. This party line view has been parroted, as usual, by various representatives of J Street.
Not only has this linkage never been true, but we now know that the Obama Administration has long been aware that the Arabs states are as anxious as Israel about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This information was contained in diplomatic cables that date back months, if not years. Why then would the Obama Administration deliberately mislead the public in regard so important a matter? The same question must be asked of the Bush Administration, which also mislead the public when it came to Iran by releasing the National Security Estimate in November 2007 that falsely concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program.
Is there anyone surprised that Obama has lied to us?
This is what surprises me: "…General David Petraeus, Secretary of State Robert Gates and Vice President Joe Biden have all insisted that the continuing occupation has made Arab states less willing to cooperate with the United States in preventing Iran from developing nuclear bombs."
I at least, held hope that an American General would be beyond reproach. A sad commentary. For shame General, for shame.
The three individuals you name have to parrot the "Official Line" but Petraeus has enouigh honor that I believe he will hang-up his spurs before long on some pretext in order to get away from the slime in the Whitehouse.
No?!! He never did!
Early in obam's administration, when in Cairo, he promised the Palestinians a contiguous Palestine and not just Eastern Jerusalem, but Jerusalem as their capitol. On page 261 of his first memoir, obam says he would ultimately side with the Muslims. To side with the Muslims requires fully supporting their primary objective; the destruction of Israel. WikiLeaks didn't expose the truth… it simply validated it.
Early in obam's administration, when in Cairo, he promised the Palestinians a contiguous Palestine and not just Eastern Jerusalem, but Jerusalem as their capitol. On page 261 of his first memoir, obam says he would ultimately side with the Muslims. To side with the Muslims requires fully supporting their primary objective; the destruction of Israel. WikiLeaks didn't expose the truth… it simply validated it.
Its not for nothing that they call him Abu Hussein!
ANYONE WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE BEING TOLD THE TRUTH, WAKE UP !
The statement that "There are good reasons for Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians leading to a two state solution," is a canard as well. There are already 4 defacto states there (See the article "The Four State Solution" which was published online in the American Thinker.
I don't know about 4 states, but the Mandate of Palastine is already 2 states – Jordan and Israel and certainly any solution must bring Jordan back to the table.
Alan:
You say “There are good reasons for Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians leading to a two state solution…”
For a long time now you’ve been the poster boy for this social theme, which you certainly must know has no historical or legal basis.
Instead of presenting yourself as in the opposite camp of J Street, you should be honest and drop the pretense.
Your goals are the same as those of J Street and the Obama Administration.
Rabbi Kahane tried to convince you, by historical and legal facts, that you were mistaken. You are just as mistaken today as you were when you were on the bima with him in the famous debate.
Wake up, Alan. Shivat L’tziyon!
Mr. Gershowitz, note Gamaliel Isaac's comment since he, too, caught your erroneous assumption. There is no such thing as a two state solution. The only way for Israel to survive is to take control. Create one or several provinces out of the West Bank in which Arab Israelis, loyal to Israel, are allowed to govern, show them how to live better lives than Muslims in all other Muslim states but tightly control education, rid the country (as we should in the free world) of hate preaching Mullahs and deport all undesirable elements.
If Iran becomes a nuclear nation the there will be no restriction on their part
to take over all the surrounding,Arab,countrys.Iran will then become the most
powerfull nation in the regio.They will control all the oil productions and at the
same time make those oil sheyks pennyless and O boy that will be a scenario
they won'nt like a bit. Israel is the only nation in the midle east who is capable
to put a stop to Iran's nuclear power madness. So now they are embracing the
Israelis and if need be they will drop the Palestinian issue like it never existed.
Imagin the former oil billionairs doing hard labour for their Iranian masters.No
they'll embrace Israel as the long lost brother,the David who will kill the Goliath
for them so they can keep sitting on their Yankee dollars and co ca co la.
The point here is that the Bush administration also lied to the American public….and I voted for Bush>>twice. What a disappointment. We honest citizens have been lied to for years about what our government is doing and why it is doing it. How do we get honest people into governmental posititons…or is that a dicotomy of terms?
Dershowitz is a Democrat and supported Obama originally, if not now. Sounds to me like he's trying to cover his butt retroactively with that untrue comment about the Bush admin:
"The same question must be asked of the Bush Administration, which also mislead the public when it came to Iran by releasing the National Security Estimate in November 2007 that falsely concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program."
In fact, Bush had no choice but to release it, because it would have been leaked. The report was probably purposely written to force Bush against a strike. Or by terribly naive analysts, embarassed about having been wrong about Hussein and WMD (not that he wouldn't have reconstittued them asap anyhow). And the analysts were a bit right, in that iran, apparently, had temporarily suspended the program after the inital resounding victory of American forces over Hussein.
Finally Patreus, as far as I recall, never said anything about Israel and Iran, only the its conflict with the Palestinians aggravated Muslim anger at American soldiers. That was silly, of course, as if the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents might be fighting less hard if only Israel and the Palestinians came to a peace agreement.
Bush is on record as recent as yesterday morning as being dismayed by the inaccurate, misleading, and unhelpful report by the NSE of 2007. He felt it put back the pressure to have the clock moving fast toward regime change and removed the pressure on the clock to slow down their nuclear aspirations and implementations.
Bush was no fan of, nor did he tout, this embarrassment of a document. That our military and intelligence are so infected by Leftists and peaceniks is a horror to average citizens like me. Who's running that shop? Barney?
Do not blame Bush for that report. He had to fight Washington, too, to try to protect us. He was not successful due to the determination of the Iranian mullahs and the blind, suicidal dhimmitude of the American Left, all dressed up in Ken doll's military clothing.
My question is always this: When we know governmnet is corrupt, it lies, it cheats, it steals, it bankrupts, then why do we have such an inclination to make government bigger and to allow it to take over more of our lives?????? Why are people so stupid to think that a corrupt government can somehow manage our personal lives for us?
Yea! What HE said.
A side question here, If the Oil rich Saudis want Iran smacked down, why don't THEY do it?
We have more reason to attack Iran than anyone else. Iran invaded the United States of America.
I completely missed that bit of news. I KNOW that Mexico is invading…..Oh you mean the Embassy as U.S. soil?
That was on Carter's watch. I think that once a quarter century passes the distinction of moral high ground fades a bit in the "world's view".
With B.O. and his defence / world justice department there is a much better chance that we will attack our CURRENT enemy…You know…..Wal-Mart!
The fall of the United States will not come from with-out, it will come from with-in. That is the only way the United States can be defeated………From with-in and it began in January 2008 when Hussain Obama was sworn in as President of this Country.Slowly but surely if it continues on the course he has set it will happen.
Surely the Dems, liberals and any sane person can see it.
National Security Estimate in November 2007, claiming that Iran stopped developing nukes in 2003 was produced by former State employees, liberal opponents of President Bush, in order to prevent him from taking action against Iran. Check your facts.
Mr. Dershowitz: If any of this comes as news to you it merely signifies that you should change your sources of information.
Impeach Obama or else think Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Mohammed controlling the U.S.A..
THE FLAME OF FREEDOM SPEAKS!
what is changed from Bush to Obama?
The Foreign policy remains un-changed.
So, The question is, " WHO IS GOVERNING THE USA FOREIGN POLICY"?
During BUSH, Obama was directing the BUSH FOREIGN POLICY!?
Very cogent.
We have a foreign policy?
Since GHW Bush I have wondered about that.
Why did Obama demand Israeli concessions supposedly to get the Arab states to oppose Iran? Obama knew that the Arab states were strongly opposed to Iran's getting the bomb, so the reasons he gave were not true.
Obama, with a career as a community organizer, is like a salesman; he is a persuader. But to make the sale, he does not feel obligated to tell the truth; he feels that the end justifies the means. In this case, he wants Israeli concessions for his own reasons; but rather than reveal his own true reasons, he finds it expedient to make up reasons, if they cannot be easily proven to be false. In this case, the WikiLeaks documents showed he lied, but this unmasking came as a complete surprise to him.
AND SO, MY PREDICTION COMES TRUE: "THOSE WHO MOST DESPISE WIKILEAKS ARE DOOMED TO RELY ON IT". FREAKIN' HILARIOUS
Scum says, " . . . Those who most despise wikileaks are doomed to rely on it. Freakin Hilarious"
Actually, only hilarious to those whose thought processes begin and end with binary thinking in which events are perceived in terms of dichotomies such as "either/or" , "good/bad" or "black/white" . This is primitive thinking.
There's an old saying which perhaps you have heard of and which I can only paraphrase, "It's an ill wind indeed that blows NO ONE any good."
When are we going to attack Iran? I never could believe the Bush administration's assertion that they abandoned the nuclear program, and I voted for the liberal Bush, albeit while holding my nose. Why would they abandon the program? They invaded the United States of America, and let's see the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, administrations have come and gone, and no one has answered the invasion. So far Obama has done nothing, he has a little more time (tee hee), but if I were wagering, I would bet he won't attack them. Why would I have any respect for a nation I can invade, without consequences? This is especially true when you consider this in the context of people (well kinda people) who only understand brute force. Mr. President, the United States of America has been invaded, please respond.
You're howlin' up the wrong tree. If Iran were ever to be invaded Obama would claim it wasn't us, it was that guy over there. Obsequious is the word I'm thinking of.
I am sure you are right, but my point is, where were all these other administrations when we were invaded. Not even neutral "peacenik" nations put up with that kind of stuff.
Republican Ford was out.
Democrat Carter was in. = Embassy attacked. hostages taken and kept.
Republican Reagan in = Hostages released.
Reagan investigated by Democrats.
Thanks to WikLeaks' cables and thanks to Stuxnet, president Obama looks like Pinocchio, a naughty boy, a pest who wan't listen to the Speaking Cricket and keeps telling lies, look at his nose, it gets longer and longer.! Finally we can breathe with a great relief! After all Mr. Ahmadinejad now seems wounded , less arrogant and in low spirits, amid his crippled nuclear centrifuges. Well done, hallelujah!
The fact that the Saudis and other Gulf States were concerned over a potential Iranian nuclear capability was generally known years ago. The fact that they were in favor of Israel's taking out that capability was also known. Wikileaks was not the original source of such information. The Bush Administration effectively prevented such a move, and the Obama Administration has focussed more on neutralizing Israel than it has on addressing Iran. Given that Israel has no oil, and Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States do, the US "and its allies" would be more disposed to respond to the threat to them, rather than to any threat to Israel. But, the US "Umbrella", as US security guaranties are termed, is being used to restrain Israel, rather than to address the Iranian threat. The anti-Israeli agenda, rather than an anti-Iranian agenda, appears to be determining US policy and actions.