Via Legal Insurrection comes this ROATS* moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zINcBfEo-7g
Continue reading :murmuring: Now that’s just showing off. #idf
Via Legal Insurrection comes this ROATS* moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zINcBfEo-7g
Continue reading :murmuring: Now that’s just showing off. #idf
Hot Air asks the question. Come, I will conceal nothing from you: my knee-jerk reaction was to mutter Of course Barack Obama wouldn’t have recognized Israels: too many Jews in it for his liking, you understand. But that’s actually, well, unfair. I mean, I don’t actually know that the President is an anti-Semite. Obama may simply think that he can’t run the Democratic party without putting up with all the Jew-haters, and he might even be right.
No, I think that what would have happened is this: in Truman’s place, Barack Obama would have been very much an advocate for Israel… on the cheap. Plenty of pretty speeches and high-minded statements. And this would have continued up to the moment when Secretary of State George Marshall (with the rest of the State Department behind him) told Barack Obama to back down, or face the consequences. At that point, you have to ask yourself: does Barack Obama have Harry S Truman’s grit? – Because say what you like about Truman (God knows there’s plenty to say), but give him this: once he decided on something that was it. Continue reading I dunno: *would* Obama have recognized Israel?
Can we get them on the record about that, thanks? – Because I’m sure that the answer would be… illuminating.
Moe Lane
PS: I’d ask Elizabeth Warren that, too, except that she’s smart enough to lie and say no – but not skilled enough to make that lie anything but a five-minute fumble-tongued exercise in excruciating tedium.
To mangle a favorite saying of a friend of mine: The Kerry works for the Czar.
If there’s no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state,” Secretary of State John Kerry told a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting Friday.
Senior American officials have rarely, if ever, used the term “apartheid” in reference to Israel, and President Obama has previously rejected the idea that the word should apply to Jewish State.
“Previously.” One of two things just happened: either Barack Obama has nominated somebody for Secretary of State who is now putting words in Barack Obama’s mouth*; or the Obama administration has decided to start the process where they can distance themselves from an ally that is cordially hated by large swathes of supporters of the Obama administration. You tell me which is worse, because I’m still scratching my head over trying to decide that one. Continue reading Barack Obama’s administration inches toward calling Israel an apartheid state.
…the rejection rate for U.S. visa applications filed by Israeli nationals between the ages of 21 and 27.
[snip]
The concern centers on young Israelis planning to travel in the United States after the completion of their compulsory military service but before they complete their educations.
[snip]
The refusal rate for Israeli visa applicants, while fluctuating somewhat from year to year, has risen from 2.5 percent in fiscal 2007 to 9.7 percent last year, according to State Department figures.
I didn’t really want to post on this, but since Barack Obama feels the need to spout off on it…
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the White House tomorrow, President Barack Obama will tell him that his country could face a bleak future — one of international isolation and demographic disaster — if he refuses to endorse a U.S.-drafted framework agreement for peace with the Palestinians. Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy. And the president will make the case that Netanyahu, alone among Israelis, has the strength and political credibility to lead his people away from the precipice.
In an hourlong interview Thursday in the Oval Office, Obama, borrowing from the Jewish sage Rabbi Hillel, told me that his message to Netanyahu will be this: “If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?” He then took a sharper tone, saying that if Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach.” He added, “It’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.”
Continue reading @BarackObama to bully Israel tomorrow! …Well. I suppose that he will *try*.
Good. Shame it’s not a literal spanking:
A new bipartisan bill introduced Thursday in the House would strip all federal funds from any U.S. academic institution that decides to boycott Israel, according to a copy of the newly filed legislation obtained by the Free Beacon.
The introduction of the bill marks the first time that Congress has sought to level harsh economic penalties on federally funded universities that seek to boycott the Jewish state.
Continue reading House bill introduced to spank anti-Semites in higher academia.
…and institutions and individuals who participate in it should be ashamed of themselves. Glenn Reynolds thinks that the best way to hit the ASA over this is the “withdrawal of funding to attend ASA events:” I’ll add that this can very easily be the soft option… and no, I’m not going to tell you what the harder options are. I want it to be a surprise and most of you can already guess, anyway.
Yes, there’s a contradiction there. I do that, sometimes.
There is a saying: People are always most conservative about the things that they care about. Senator Charles Schumer apparently cares quite a good deal about our ally Israel not being consumed in a nuclear fire. His remarks Sunday night about Iranian sanctions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlShdx4hODg
Via Hot Air, including a partial transcript. Spoilers: Schumer’s for more sanctions, and is worried about what will happen to Israel if Iran gets a nuke. Like most of the rest of the country, mind you. Continue reading Will Senator Charles Schumer (D, NY) stand with @BarackObama, or with our allies?
(H/T: Instapundit) Because let me be clear about something:
Applications of pro-Israel groups for tax-exempt status are routinely routed to an antiterrorism unit within the Internal Revenue Service for additional screening, according to the testimony of a Cincinnati-based IRS agent.
[snip]
Asked by investigators whether “all pro-Israel applicants went to the terrorism unit,” Muthert responded, “Probably . . . foreign activity, pro-Israel — if it is any type of foreign activity, it will go to the antiterrorism area.” Screeners like Muthert must consult the list of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Treasury Department office that enforces economic and trade sanctions, and “the terrorist list . . . because a lot of organizations will create charities to funnel the money to terrorist countries.”
Continue reading Is the IRS *unduly* targeting pro-Israel groups for scrutiny?