in 2010 the Obama administration stopped reporting the total U.S. contributions to the U.N.

July 18, 2013
(Susan Rice ended her term by appearing before the cameras at U.N. Headquarters on June 25 and reciting a list of Team Obama’s purported achievements. Among other things, Rice claimed that she had saved American taxpayer dollars going to the U.N. and had created new “transparency.”)

Will Obama make Israel "an offer it can’t refuse?"

March 5, 2013
Israel, Jews, and Judaism: Will Obama make Israel “an offer it can’t refuse?
There is a report making the rounds that unnamed “Israeli sources” claim that Barack Obama will shortly “demand a timetable for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank,” presumably in return for the US dealing with Iran. A 2014 deadline to establish a Palestinian state is mentioned.
Things like this surface all the time, and mostly they are simply nonsense. It is irresponsible for a journalist, or even a blogger, to publish what is essentially a rumor based on a single report which does not even include a source.
And yet…
There are certainly people in the White House who would think this is a good idea. Everyone knows, they would say, that only details prevent a two-state solution, and the main obstacle to moving forward is right-wing influence on the Israeli PM. Here’s an opportunity, they are saying, let’s take it.
The simple reason that there can be no two-state solution is that it entails the acceptance by the Palestinians of the continued existence of the Jewish state west of the Green Line, and that contradicts the essence of the Palestinian national project. Indeed, one could — I would — go so far as to say that Arabs who would accept a peaceful state alongside Israel as a permanent goal could not properly be called ‘Palestinians’, since the very definition of a ‘Palestinian people’ negates Zionism (but perhaps I digress).
Dennis Ross, who knows as much about ‘peace processing’ as anyone, recently put forward a 14-point plan to bring about a two-state solution. It illustrates two things: one, that Ross possesses a paradoxical combination of intelligence, experience and the inability to see his nose in front of his face; and two, that the concessions it would require from the Palestinians are, as I said above, unthinkable.
Regardless, while a ‘solution’ — that is, an agreement that ends the conflict — is impossible, a coerced Israeli withdrawal in the context of an agreement that pretends to end the conflict is. And that is the danger.
Whether those who would like to force a withdrawal cynically understand that it would be disastrous for Israel’s security and don’t care (or welcome such a disaster), or whether they actually believe it would be a step toward peace is not important. What is important is that they might be able to sell the idea to a public — particularly liberal Jews — that to a great extent continues to believe in the two-state idea. And if they don’t object strongly enough, how could it be stopped?
The confirmation of Chuck Hagel, and particularly the collapse of Sen. Charles Schumer should be instructive. When push comes to shove, today’s liberals — even “strong supporters of Israel” like Schumer are Obama supporters first.
There is another aspect of the situation. That is that the combination of a blow against Iran with a blow against Israel would be a win-win for Sunni Muslim interests in the Middle East: the Saudis, the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey would all like to see Iran defanged and Israel weakened vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Interestingly, Islamist Turkey, the Brotherhood and the Saudis seem to be the people that President Obama finds the most congenial in the region.
Everything seems to be lining up to their advantage. Israel withdraws, the US bombs Iran, Hizballah responds by attacking Israel. Sunni forces, in particular those supported by Turkey, take advantage of the chaos (and the preoccupation of Hizballah) to finish off Assad and take control of Syria. Although the US will support the Palestinian Authority for a time, Hamas — don’t forget, it is the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood — will soon get control of Judea and Samaria one way or another.
There are other unpleasant possibilities — US-led UN or NATO troops in Judea/Samaria to ‘protect’ the peace agreement, which will end up protecting Palestinian terrorists against Israel, even the possibility of the IDF and Americans shooting at each other. Sound impossible? Chuck Hagel thought it was a good idea, as did Samantha Power, Obama’s “Senior Director of Multilateral Affairs on the staff of the National Security Council.
So, yes, the rumor about a planned offer that Israel can’t refuse is only a rumor. But it could be a true rumor. We’ll find out very shortly.

Genocide Watch Issues Alert: South Africa In Early Stages Of White Genocide

July 29, 2012

World’s top genocide expert and founder of Genocide Watch, Prof. Gregory Stanton, visits South Africa to investigate violence against whites (Afrikaners). He warns them at a press conference on July 26 2012: “Don’t give up your guns.”
“UN’s Francis Deng has been informed; and I will also inform Samantha Power, head of the US Atrocities Prevention Board, as well as the FBI’S Genocide Prevention Unit upon my return.” – Prof. Gregory Stanton, World’s Top Genocide expert, founder Genocide Watch

July 26, 2012, 11am PRETORIA – Press conference by Prof Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch US in South Africa: as reported by dr Dan Roodt of the Pro-Afrikaans-Action-Group:
– Stanton said he was on a fact-finding mission regarding the extraordinarily high numbers of cruelty displayed during attacks and murders against white farmers, their families and workers; and also interviewed community leaders about the widespread anti-Afrikaner discrimination and hatespeech emanating from the ANC-regime.

“Genocide Watch had raised South Africa to level 6 when Malema was singing Kill the Boer song’. And now SA president Jacob Zuma is also singing it.”
He said at the start of his press conference that he had tried to get interviews with ANC-leaders specifically to discuss the hatespeech issue surround the Kill the Boer song. He was refused access. “I would have dearly loved to have spoken to them’; he said at the well-attended press conference at the Transvaal Agricultural Union’s headquarters in Silverton, Pretoria.

“We at Genocide Watch have enough suspicion that there may be an organised effort at a genocide in South Africa, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely’.
“Desecration of bodies in SA also happened in Rwanda and Burundi”, he said — adding that he would be meeting the US Minister of Council today to inform them of the situation in South Africa”. He had spoken to many Afrikaners from all walks of life and is returning with hitherto-unknown details about atrocities.
“You only need a small group to carry out a full-blown genocide. When I talked about the 8 stages of genocide, some of the early stages are precursors to genocide’.
“The SA farm murders should become ‘a priority crime’ for the South African government, and that they had to try their very best to try and stop them.
Many of the Afrikaners present also asked him exactly what genocide entailed. He explained that for instance, ‘if the government took away your children and prevented you from speaking Afrikaans to them, it is a genocide act. “And driving people out of their territory is also another form of genocide.’ Also: “Killing members of a group, even 3,000, could constitute a genocide.’
Asked by Edwin Leemans of the Boereleed Institute whether the ANC-leaders could be taken to the International criminal court in the Hague to be tried, he replied “South Africa is a state-party to the Rome Statute. Policians could be tried in The Hague regarding their inflammatory speech towards Afrikaners.’
Stanton said he had spoken to community leaders and crime-victims during his fact-finding tour in South Africa.
‘Francis Deng of the United Nations has also taken notice of what is happening in South Africa to the Afrikaners.” He also undertook to take all the information he had gathered on his fact-finding tour in South Africa to Samantha Power, head of the US Atrocities Prevention Board, as well as to the FBI’S Genocide Prevention Unit.
He did not express any political views – for instance regarding the rights of Afrikaners to self-determination – as posed by Cor Ehlers.
And one Afrikaner at the press conference challenged Stanton, saying he was ‘skeptic’ about Stanton’s claims: Johan Burger of the Institute for Security Studies and a former SA Police Commissioner, asked: “what is the factual basis for the assumptions we are making’? Stanton explained that similar incredulity was seen in Europe and the USA regarding reports about any pending Afrikaner genocide.
“The godlike status of Mandela is like that of Martin Luther King or Ghandi. We now know they were not perfect. Nevertheless, as long as Mandela is alive, Europe and the US will not believe the situation in which Afrikaners now find themselves in South Africa.”
He expressed the hope that ‘war would never happen in South Africa: that you will be able to fight back against the communist ideology’. He also urged the Afrikaners to ‘fight back using the courts and the policing system, and ‘for God’s sake don’t ever give up your guns, despite the gun laws.’
About Gregory Stanton: Gregory H. Stanton is the Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention at George Mason University in Fairfax County, Virginia, United States. He is the best known for his work in the area of genocide studies. He is the founder (1999) and president of Genocide Watch, the founder (1981) and director of the Cambodian Genocide Project, and the founder (1999) and Chair of the International Campaign to End Genocide. From 2007 to 2009 he was the President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars.
Stanton comes from the lineage of women’s suffrage activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Henry Brewster Stanton, an anti-slavery leader. He worked as a voting rights worker in Mississippi, a Peace Corps Volunteer in the Ivory Coast, and as Church World Service/CARE Field Director in Cambodia in 1980.
Stanton is Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Arlington, Virginia. From 2003 to 2009 he was the James Farmer Professor in Human Rights at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia. He has been a Law Professor at Washington and Lee University, American University, and the University of Swaziland. He has degrees from Oberlin College, Harvard Divinity School, Yale Law School, and a Doctorate in Cultural Anthropology from the University of Chicago. He was a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (2001–2002).
Stanton served in the State Department (1992–1999), where he drafted the United Nations Security Council resolutions that created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Burundi Commission of Inquiry, and the Central African Arms Flow Commission. He also drafted the U.N. Peacekeeping Operations resolutions that helped bring about an end to the Mozambique civil war. In 1994, Stanton won the American Foreign Service Association’s prestigious W. Averell Harriman award for “extraordinary contributions to the practice of diplomacy exemplifying intellectual courage,” based on his dissent from U.S. policy on the Rwandan genocide. He wrote the State Department options paper on ways to bring the Khmer Rouge to justice in Cambodia.
In 1999 Stanton founded Genocide Watch. From 1999 to 2000, he also served as Co-Chair of the Washington Working Group for the International Criminal Court. Genocide Watch is the Chair and Coordinator of the International Campaign to End Genocide, which includes 30 organizations in 11 countries, including the Minority Rights Group, the International Crisis Group, the Aegis Trust, Survival International, and the Genocide Intervention Network.
Before he joined the State Department, Stanton was a legal advisor to RUKH, the Ukrainian independence movement, work for which he was named the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America’s 1992 Man of the Year. He was the Chair of the American Bar Association Young Lawyer’s Division Committee on Human Rights and a member of the A.B.A.’s Standing Committee on World Order Under Law.
In 2007, Stanton was elected President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, to serve until 2009.

Another Multicultural Failure. Is freedom allowing people who want to kill you to live with you?

Obama’s altruistic foreign policy

April 22, 2011

If only in the interest of intellectual hygiene, it would be refreshing if the Obama administration would stop ascribing moral impetuses to its foreign policy.
Today, US forces are engaged in a slowly escalating war on behalf of al-Qaida penetrated antiregime forces in Libya. It is difficult to know the significance of al-Qaida’s role in the opposition forces because to date, the self-proclaimed rebel government has only disclosed 10 of its 31 members.
Indeed, according to The New York Times, the NATO-backed opposition to dictator Muammar Gaddafi is so disorganized that it cannot even agree about who the commander of its forces is.
And yet, despite the fact that the Obama administration has no clear notion of who is leading the fight against Gaddafi or what they stand for, this week the White House informed Congress that it will begin directly funding the al-Qaida-linked rebels, starting with $25 million in non-lethal material. This aid, like the NATO no-fly zone preventing Gaddafi from using his air force, and the British military trainers now being deployed to Libya to teach the rebels to fight, will probably end up serving no greater end then prolonging the current stalemate. With the Obama administration unwilling to enforce the no-fly zone with US combat aircraft, unwilling to take action to depose Gaddafi and unwilling to cultivate responsible, pro-Western successors to Gaddafi, the angry tyrant will probably remain in power indefinitely.
In and of itself, the fact that the war has already reached a stalemate constitutes a complete failure of the administration’s stated aim of protecting innocent Libyan civilians from slaughter.
Not only are both the regime forces and the rebel forces killing civilians daily. Due to both sides’ willingness to use civilians as human shields, NATO forces unable to differentiate between fighters and civilians and so they too are killing their share of civilians.
In deciding in favor of military intervention on the basis of a transnational legal doctrine never accepted as law by the US Congress called “responsibility to protect,” President Barack Obama was reportedly swayed by the arguments of his senior national security adviser Samantha Power. Over the past 15 years, Power has fashioned herself into a celebrity policy wonk by cultivating a public persona of herself as a woman moved by the desire to prevent genocide. In a profile of Power in the current issue of the National Journal, Jacob Heilbrunn explains, “Power is not just an advocate for human rights. She is an outspoken crusader against genocide…”
Heilbrunn writes that Power’s influence over Obama and her celebrity status has made her the leader of a new US foreign policy elite. “This elite,” he writes, “is united by a shared belief that American foreign policy must be fundamentally transformed from an obsession with national interests into a broader agenda that seeks justice for women and minorities, and promotes democracy whenever and wherever it can — at the point of a cruise missile if necessary.”
As the prolonged slaughter in Libya and expected continued failure of the NATO mission make clear, Power and her new foreign policy elite have so far distinguished themselves mainly by their gross incompetence.
But then, even if the Libyan mission were crowned in success, it wouldn’t make the moral pretentions of the US adventure there any less disingenuous. And this is not simply because the administration-backed rebels include al-Qaida fighters.
The fact is that the moral arguments used for intervening militarily on behalf of Gaddafi’s opposition pale in comparison to the moral arguments for intervening in multiple conflicts where the Obama administration refuses to lift a finger. At a minimum, this moral inconsistency renders it impossible for the Obama administration to credibly embrace the mantel of moral actor on the world stage.
Consider the administration’s Afghanistan policy.
Over the past week, the White House and the State Department have both acknowledged that administration officials are conducting negotiations with the Taliban.
Last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defended the administration’s policy. During a memorial service for the late ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who at the time of his death last December was the most outspoken administration figure advocating engaging Mullah Omar and his followers, Clinton said, “Those who found negotiations with the Taliban distasteful got a very powerful response from Richard – diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends.”
Of course, the Taliban are not simply not America’s friends. They are the enemy of every good and decent human impulse. The US went to war against the Taliban in 2001 because the Bush administration rightly held them accountable for Osama bin Laden and his terror army which the Taliban sponsored, hosted and sheltered on its territory.
But the Taliban are America’s enemy not just because they bear responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the US. They are the enemy of the US because they are evil monsters.
Apparently, the supposedly moral, anti-genocidal, pro-women Obama administration needs to be reminded why it is not merely distasteful but immoral to engage the Taliban. So here it goes.
Under the Taliban, the women and girls of Afghanistan were the most oppressed, most terrorized, most endangered group of people in the world. Women and girls were denied every single human right. They were effectively prisoners in their homes, allowed on the streets only when fully covered and escorted by a male relative.
They were denied the right to education, work and medical care. Women who failed to abide in full by these merciless rules were beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and stoned to death.
The Taliban’s barbaric treatment of women and girls probably couldn’t have justified their overthrow at the hands of the US military. But it certainly justified the US’s refusal to even consider treating them like legitimate political actors in the 10 years since NATO forces first arrived in Afghanistan. And yet, the self-proclaimed champions of the downtrodden in the administration are doing the morally unjustifiable. They are negotiating, and so legitimizing the most diabolical sexual tyranny known to man. Obama, Clinton, Power and their colleagues are now shamelessly advancing a policy that increases the likelihood that the Taliban will again rise to power and enslave Afghanistan’s women and girls once more.
Then there is Syria. In acts of stunning courage, despite massive regime violence that has killed approximately two hundred people in three weeks, anti-regime protesters in Syria are not standing down. Instead, they are consistently escalating their protests. They have promised that the demonstrations after Friday prayers this week will dwarf the already unprecedented country-wide protests we have seen to date.
In the midst of the Syrian demonstrators’ calls for freedom from one of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East, the Obama administration has sided with their murderous dictator Bashar Assad, referring to him as a “reformer.”
As Heibrunn notes in his profile of Power, she and her colleagues find concerns about US national interests parochial at best and immoral at worst. Her clear aim — and that of her boss – has been to separate US foreign policy from US interests by tethering it to transnational organizations like the UN.
Given the administration’s contempt for policy based on US national interests, it would be too much to expect the White House to notice that Syria’s Assad regime is one of the greatest state supporters of terrorism in the world and that its overthrow would be a body blow to Iran, Venezuela, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida and therefore a boon for US national security.
In theory, the Syrian opposition presents the likes of Obama and Power with what ought to be a serious moral dilemma. First, they seem to fit the precise definition of the sort of people that the transnationalists have a responsibility to protect.
They are being gunned down by the dozen as they march with olive branches and demand change they can believe in. Moreover, their plan for ousting Assad involves subordinating him to the transnationalists at the UN.
According to a report last week in The Washington Times, Washington-based representatives of several Syrian opposition groups have asked the administration to do three things in support of the opposition, all of which are consonant with the administration’s own oft stated foreign policy preferences.
They have requested that Obama condemn the regime’s murderous actions in front of television cameras. They have asked the administration to initiate an investigation of Assad’s murderous response to the demonstrations at the UN Human Rights Council. And they have asked the administration to enact unilateral sanctions against a few Syrian leaders who have given troops the orders to kill the protesters.
The administration has not responded to the request to act against Assad at the UN Human Rights Council. It has refused the opposition’s other two requests.
These responses are no surprise in light of the Obama administration’s abject and consistent refusal to take any steps that could help Iran’s pro-democracy, pro-women’s rights, pro-Western opposition Green Movement in its nearly two-year-old struggle to overthrow the nuclear proliferating, terror-supporting, genocide-inciting, elections-stealing mullocracy.
Power’s personal contribution to the shocking moral failings of the administration’s foreign policy is of a piece with her known hostility towards Israel. That hostility, which involves a moral inversion of the reality of the Palestinian war against Israel, was most graphically exposed in a 2002 interview. Then, at the height of the Palestinian terror war against Israel, when Palestinian terrorists from Hamas and Fatah alike were carrying out daily attacks whose clear aim was the massacre of as many Israeli civilians as possible simply because they were Israelis, Power said in a filmed interview that she supported deploying a “mammoth” US military force to Israel to protect the Palestinians from the IDF.
In periodic attempts to convince credulous pro-Israel writers that she doesn’t actually support invading Israel, Power has claimed that her statements calling for just such an invasion and additional remarks in which she blamed American Jews for US support of Israel were inexplicable lapses of judgment.
But then there have been so many lapses in judgment in her behavior and in the actions of the administration she serves that it is hard to see where the lapses begin and the judgment ends. Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and Israel are only the tip of the iceberg. Everywhere from Honduras to Venezuela, from Britain to Russia, from Colombia to Cuba, Japan to China, Egypt to Lebanon, to Poland and the Czech Republic and beyond, those lapses in judgment are informing policies that place the US consistently on the side of aggressors against their victims.
Back in the pre-Obama days, when US foreign policy was supposed to serve US interests, it would have mattered that these policies all weaken the US and its allies and empower its foes. But now, in the era of the purely altruistic Obama administration, none of that matters.
What does matter is that the purely altruistic Obama foreign policy is empowering genocidal, misogynist, bigoted tyrants worldwide.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Shmuely Boteach calls Samantha Power one of his heroes

April 12, 2011

Oy vey…. I knew I wasn’t going to like this article when in the second paragraph, Orthodox Rabbi Shmuely Boteach described the Irish-born shikse married to a JINO (Jew in Name Only) as ‘one of my heroes.’ It gets worse from there. It sounds like Boteach was overly impressed with the fact that she invited him to meet with her at the White House.

The principal comments attributed to her come from an interview she granted in 2002, when she was asked to respond to a “thought experiment” regarding what she would advise an American president if it seemed that either party in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were moving toward genocide. Power, fresh on the national scene, was baited and answered that preventing such a genocide could entail being prepared to alienate a powerful constituency – by which she meant the American-Jewish community – and sending in a protective force. From these comments – putting Israel and the possibility of genocide in a single sentence – Power has been conflated with other enemies of Israel.
In our conversation, she rejected utterly the notion she had any animus toward Israel and acknowledged that she had erred in offering hypothetical comments. She said opponents of Obama had unfairly taken her disorganized comments further and characterized them as “invade Israel” talk. She said that if she really believed Israel could even be remotely accused of genocide, then the correct forum for that view would have been in the 664 pages of her book, wherein she details all the genocides of the 20th century.

They’re not the only comments – we’ll come back to the others – but although I have shown it before, let’s once again go to the videotape of that infamous 2002 interview.

Does that sound like a friend of Israel?
Rabbi Boteach goes on to cite another point in Power’s favor.

In addition, some leading members of the American Jewish establishment told me that Power was instrumental in having America decline attendance at Durban II in April 2009, otherwise known as the United Nations World Conference Against Racism, which promised to be, like Durban I in 2001, a UNsponsored Israel hate-fest.

How’s that for a vague description? Who were these ‘leading members of the American Jewish establishment’? Will they come to Power’s defense too? If not, why not?
Actually, it ‘s worse than just vague. Recall that by the time the US pulled out of Durban II, it was too late to torpedo the conference. In fact, Power did everything she could to turn the conference into something that the US would feel it could attend. She is also an admirer of Durban II Secretary General Mary Robinson, who received a President’s medal along with the Jew-hating South African Bishop Desmond Tutu – probably both on Power’s recommendation.
And then Boteach really goes off the deep end.

THERE HAVE been other comments by Power that have been interpreted as hostile to Israel, but the interpretations rely on the presumption, generated in 2002, that she is anti- Israel. Based on Power’s clarification – and much more importantly, her actions – I believe this perception to be without merit.

Huh? Let’s look at some of Power’s comments that were hostile to Israel other than that original video and see whether they stand in their own right.
In a lengthy article on President Obama’s on President Obama’s foreign policy advisers during the 2008 campaign, Ed Lasky had a lot to say about Samantha Power. Here are some highlights that have nothing to do with that 2002 video.

Power also showed her animus toward Israel in another instance, appearing to argue with the New York Times for more negative coverage of Israel in the paper. As Noah Pollak writes:

“Martin Kramer points us to an interesting quote from the 2003 book Ethnic Violence and Justice, in which Samantha Power, one of Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, asks a question of David Rohde, a reporter who covered the intifada for the New York Times. The quote is as follows:

Samantha Power: I have a question for David about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: “Human Rights Report 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?

(The article to which Power refers is here, and its headline is: “MIDEAST TURMOIL: INQUIRY; Rights Group Doubts Mass Deaths in Jenin, but Sees Signs of War Crimes.” Obviously, Power has misremembered the headline.)
Here we have another window into the thinking of Power: Israel is accused in sensational press reports of a massacre in Jenin, and is subjected to severe international condemnation; Human Rights Watch finally gets out a report and says there was no massacre; the NYT reports this as its headline; and Power thinks the headline still should have been: Israel guilty of war crimes!”
Revelations regarding Power’s views of Israel can be found in her new book, Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira De Mello and the Fight to Save the World, a biography of the UN official killed in Baghdad in a 2003 terrorist bombing. A series of terrorist attacks emanating from the mini-terror state created in Southern Lebanon by the PLO had led to an Israeli occupation of the southern portion of Lebanon. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon had been inserted to quell the conflict, but was proving ineffectual. Israeli forces remained in place.
Power wrote:

” Israeli forces refused to comply with the spirit of international demands to withdraw and the major powers on the Security Council were not prepared to deal with the gnarly issues that had sparked the Israelis invasion in the first place: dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli insecurity”.

The “spirit of international demands” to withdraw? Aside from wondering what that means and the enforceability of such a spirit, how about that phrase “dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli insecurity”? The dispossessed Palestinians had left Palestine mostly at the behest of calls by their Arab brethren to step out of the way as armed forces invaded Israel upon its founding. They and their descendants were denied rights by Lebanon and were unable to assimilate — unlike the 600,000 Jews who were stripped of their possessions in Arab lands and whom Israel welcomed. The term “Israeli insecurity” makes it seem as if the Israelis were suffering from an emotional or psychological condition. In fact, it was not insecurity, per se, that the Israelis suffered from. It was Palestinian terrorism that the Lebanese government refused to prevent.
There is more from Ms. Power. Israel warned UNIFIL of its upcoming move into Southern Lebanon. Power talked of this move as a “ploy” and then wrote of “humiliation” that was to come as Israel ignored UN efforts to stop them. She wrote:

“Israel had thumbed its nose at the Security Council resolutions that demanded that Israel stay out of Lebanon, and in the course of invading a neighbor, its forces had trampled on the UN peacekeepers in its way”.

She quotes the subject of her book — really a hagiography — calling the Israelis “bastards”. She writes that the degradations suffered by UNIFIL before the Israeli invasion was felt far worse after the Israelis came into Lebanon. She writes that the Israeli authorities “threatened the peacekeepers and denigrated them”.

And then there’s this from another Lasky article on Power.

She sat down for an interview with England’s New Statesman magazine and what she said may surprise many Americans. During the interview, she stated that President Obama would engage with President Ahmadinejad, North Korea, and Syria. Then she is asked, “…is there anyone he wouldn’t talk to”?
She responded that there was no one among “elected heads of state. He won’t talk to Hamas, but he would talk to Abbas”. The interviewer points out that inconsistency inherent in her answer by informing the Harvard foreign policy expert that Hamas was a democratically-elected government and that Abbas’ Fatah party lost the last popular vote.
Professor Power backtracked and then said that Barack Obama would talk to “heads of state” and swiftly veered off into a discussion about how America has supported dictatorships in the past. This seems to cut both ways. Would President Obama talk to Hamas? Is Hamas a dictatorship, democratically elected?

Even the interviewer doubts Power’s sincerity at that point, titling the next section ” The Odd Fib” and indicating that he did not believe she’s convinced by what she is saying and that dissembling does not come easy to her (for confirmation of this, see her defensive interview with Shmuel Rosner and the critique of the same by Paul Mirengoff of Powerline.)
The interviewer notes (presumably because America is in the heat of the primary season)

“…it is politically impossible for Obama to talk to Hamas, even if he wants to. She can’t say that, though” because of what he depicts as internet smears. The interviewer characterizes these criticisms as allegations that she is anti-Semitic. So far as I have seen, nobody has ever made this allegation. The focus has been on her policy principles.

Then, in the money quote, Power plaintively complains:

“So much of it is about: ‘Is he going to be good for the Jews?'”

How much comfort can pro-Israel voters take in a candidate whose possible Secretary of State feels free to characterize legitimate concerns and questions as revolving around the issue of “is it good for the Jews”? Ms. Power might be unaware that support for our ally Israel is widespread across America and cuts across all religious and ethnic groups.

This is what Boteach calls a ‘friend of Israel’?
In this article from February 2010, Power was also critical of Israel’s handling of the Goldstone Report:

Heading the Israeli delegation was the Foreign Ministry’s deputy director for international organizations, Eviatar Manor. The delegation met with officials including the U.S. assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, Michael Posner, and President Barack Obama’s adviser on human rights, Samantha Power.
The Americans were interested to hear whether Israel had decided on whether to set up a committee to investigate Operation Cast Lead. Power asked about Israeli public opinion on this issue.
Power did not hide her criticism of Israel’s handling of the Goldstone report; she asked whether Israel’s thinking on the issue was “strategic or tactical.”
“Is the correct strategy fighting Goldstone on all fronts?” she asked.
A main message of the U.S. officials was that the humanitarian situation in Gaza was directly linked to the ability of Israel’s critics to push the Goldstone report forward and the ability to block the report’s consequences.

Translation: Power to Israel: ‘You brought Goldstone on yourselves, and we’re not going to help you out of it unless you ease up on Hamas.’ A pro-Israel attitude, Shmuely?
I searched in vain for quotes from Samantha Power decrying Muslim hatred or Islamic terrorism. I didn’t find any. I did, however, find this from the New Statesman interview cited above:

All we talk about is ‘Islamic terrorism’. If the two words are associated for long enough it’s obviously going to have an effect on how people think about Muslims. But I think Obama’s going to do wonders for closing those chasms. Even just opening up a conversation is going to get us some of the way. And it’s not insignificant that he spent time in a Muslim country, that he is half Kenyan – a lot of barriers have been bust through.

She’s likely one of the architects of the Obama administration’s newspeak in which ‘Islam’ and ‘terrorism’ are never used together (and ‘terrorism’ isn’t used at all).

Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves Again

Rabbi Boteach seems enamored with Power. He has fallen completely for the spin that will try to present her as a fitting choice for Secretary of State if God forbid Obama should be re-elected. Whether Boteach was impressed by the visit to the White House, or by Power’s opposition to his next door neighbor, Muammar Gadhafi (which may have resulted in the US supporting al-Qaeda-backed rebels at Power’s behest), Boteach seems to have fallen for Power lock, stock and barrel. We should not make the same mistake.

think about the kind of background Samantha Power comes from. The head of Columbia University who is also the top guy at the Washington Post and chairman of the board of the NY Fed Bank is the man who gave her the Pulitzer Prize. This Samantha rubs shoulders with the scum who destroyed America… surely she can come up with a rabbi to be a friend with… oh wait… she just did.

Al Jazeera’s shill to U.S. audience by Pres. Bollinger of Columbia U. AKA Washington Post AKA chair Fed Bank

March 29, 2011

Lee Bollinger, Columbia University’s $1,753,984-a-year president who also serves as chairman of the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York

GazaColumbia Univ. President 
Lee C. Bollinger
(a member of the 
Pulitzer Prize board
awarding Samantha Powers

her trophy Pulitzer
so she can have an excuse
to say Obama should invade Israel

Lee Bollinger, Columbia University’s $1,753,984-a-year president who also serves as chairman of the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, has an article in Bloomberg Businessweek arguing that the Federal Communications Commission should force cable companies to carry Al Jazeera. He describes access to the channel as “critically valuable” to “our democracy” and to “America’s understanding of the world.”

This is ridiculous. Anyone who wants to see what Al Jazeera English has on offer can easily visit its Web site. One can find an article by an American responding to the recent murder of Israeli children by writing that “Netanyahu has never condemned or even expressed remorse over the killing of 300 plus Palestinian children by the IDF during the Gaza war. (In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any Israeli government that ever even criticised the killing of Palestinian children by the IDF, although many hundreds have been killed over the last decade).” One can find an article by a Columbia professor asserting that “a ‘manly’ and ‘straight’ heteronormativity was manufactured for ‘Arabs'” and calling for humans to transcend “obscene class divisions.”
There’s no disclosure at all to Bloomberg Businessweek readers that Mr. Bollinger and Columbia have some substantial ties to the al Thani family that owns both the country of Qatar and Al Jazeera. A Columbia art exhibit Web site acknowledges the support of “The Arab Museum of Modern Art, Qatar and the Qatar Foundation, Her Excellency Sheikha al Mayassa bint Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, and His Excellency Sheikh Hassan bin Mohammed bin Ali Al Thani.” ABC News reported “the Qatari princess went to college at Duke University in North Carolina and is now pursuing a masters at Columbia University in New York.” Mr. Bollinger has shown no hesitation in the past when it comes to accepting donations from undemocratic or unfree Arab countries; Columbia took money from the United Arab Emirates that Harvard refused to accept. If Americans are looking for an Al Jazeera-type perspective they don’t even need the American government to force Al Jazeera onto their cable television; they can just go enroll in Columbia’s Middle East studies department, at least one of whose professors Mayor Bloomberg’s own administration has adjudged unworthy of training New York City public school teachers.
The whole column is an embarrassment to both Mr. Bollinger (who is apparently difficult to embarrass) and Businessweek. It’s not clear what is so special about Al Jazeera that it deserves to be forced by the U.S. government onto American televisions. Does Mr. Bollinger want every foreign television channel whose owner is a major Columbia donor or potential one to be forced by the American government onto American television?
Mr. Bollinger is a paid director of the Washington Post Company, which owns a cable television company that serves 720,000 customers in 19 states. If he thinks it’s so vitally important to American democracy for all Americans to watch Al Jazeera, let him speak up at the next Post board meeting and earn his directors fees by forcing Al Jazeera into the cable package of all of his own company’s customers, rather than asking the government to impose the channel on the rest of us.

Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University via

Columbia Journalism School’s Lecture Hall was packed Friday afternoon when a panel of five journalists and digital media experts gathered to discuss the power and potential of social media in a televised discussion with Marwan Bishara, host of Al Jazeera English’s “Empire.”Watch it here  Check the broadcast schedule via journalism.columbia.ed Al Jazeera: Reporting in Gaza Listen via

Cable ONE is a United States cable service provider and subsidiary of The Washington Post Company, functioning as its own self-contained corporation within its parent company. The company’s name and current focus dates back to 1997; prior to that time the company was known as Post-Newsweek Cable. It is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.[1]
Cable ONE is the 10th largest cable provider [2] in the USA with most subscribers residing in small rural communities in nineteen midwestern, southern, and western states. As of January 2009, about 699,000 subscribers receive basic service and about 230,000 receive digital video service from Cable ONE. The company offers broadband Internet to over 370,000 subscribers. [3] In May 2006, Cable ONE began a system-by-system launch of its digital telephone service with currently about 94,000 subscribers. Cable ONE is the only major cable provider that maps subchannel numbers same as digital cable box channel numbers. [4] via

Lieberman: Obama trying to force agreement on Israel

October 4, 2010

during the election Samantha Powers was said to not represent the opinions of Obama…. do you still believe this?

Iranian president says “may the undertaker bury you, your table and your body, which has soiled the world,” in language reserved for enemies.

Leave a Comment » | Avigdor Lieberman, Genocide, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Piece Conference, Samantha_Power | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon