Has Obama cut off information to Israel?
Lack of communication 'not normal practice'

---------
Posted: May 10, 2009
6:10 pm Eastern


By Aaron Klein
2009 WorldNetDaily


JERUSALEM – Unlike the Bush administration, the staff of President Obama is not coordinating its policy on Iran or the greater Middle East with Israel and has not been informing the Jewish state of its plans or recent diplomatic developments in the Mideast, according to sources in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office.

The silence extends to U.S. talks with the Palestinians, the sources said.

"Our intention and our hope as we go to Washington is to establish close intimate cooperative relationships on these sensitive matters," a top Netanyahu official told WND yesterday.

The official was speaking about Netanyahu's May 18 visit to the White House.

According to other sources in the prime minister's office, Israel has been obtaining the vast majority of its information regarding U.S. plans and advances for the Middle East from third parties, mostly European diplomats.

This is in stark contrast to Bush's eight-year presidency, during which the White House and State Department routinely briefed Israeli counterparts on Middle East affairs to the extent that the majority of official U.S. and Israeli statements on various policy issues were heavily coordinated.

A recent example of the Obama administration leaving Israel in the dark was information received by Jerusalem officials of a U.S. deadline of October for Iran to show progress in talks over their nuclear program. That deadline was apparently set by Obama's Middle East envoy Dennis Ross.

The information of the deadline – first reported by Haaretz yesterday and confirmed by WND – was discovered in Jerusalem not via U.S. sources but from third party European diplomats who were briefed on the matter.

"Right now there is next to no communication coming to us from the White House," said a source in Netanyahu's office.

The source warned against interpreting the matter as evidencing an anti-Israel bias from the Obama administration.

"Look, there is a new administration in the U.S. and a new one here (in Israel)," the source said. "There hasn't been so much time yet to establish channels."

Still, the source noted the extent of the blackout on information from the U.S. was "not usual practice."

A second source said the lack of communication between Israel and America extends to Israeli-Palestinian affairs. That source described a meeting last month between Netanyahu and another of Obama's Middle East envoys, George Mitchell. The source said the meeting largely was a one-way street, with the prime minister sharing his intended approach to Syria and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said Mitchell outlined Obama's overall strategy for the region but did not update Netanyahu on any talks with the Palestinians or specifics of Obama's intentions.

"Other than the Mitchell meeting, basically there wasn't much other communication at all, period," said the second source. "And we were not informed beforehand of policy statements that were made by Obama or his administration regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including statements Obama made after meeting Jordan's King Abdullah (last month)."

Obama trumpets 'anti-Israel' Arab plan

WND's source said one thing Mitchell did convey to Netanyahu was Obama's alleged plan to help create a Palestinian state in hopes of normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab world in line with the "Arab Peace Initiative." The source said Mitchell relayed that Obama's Middle East strategy would be based on the concept of the "initiative" but with security guarantees for Israel.

Following scores of denials he would trumpet the plan, Obama in January hailed the Arab initiative, which offers normalization of ties with the Jewish state in exchange for extreme Israeli concessions.

In an interview with an Arab television network – his first formal interview as president – Obama stated:

"Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. ... I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace. I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Since then, Obama and his team have trumpeted the plan several more times, including during a meeting last month with Jordan's Abdullah.

The Arab Initiative, originally proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002 and later adopted by the Arab League, states that Israel would receive "normal relations" with the Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem, which includes the Temple Mount.

The West Bank contains important Jewish biblical sites and borders central Israeli population centers, while the Golan Heights looks down on Israeli civilian zones and was twice used by Syria to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state.

The Arab plan also demands the imposition of a non-binding U.N. resolution that calls for so-called Palestinian refugees who wish to move inside Israel to be permitted to do so at the "earliest practicable date."

Palestinians have long demanded the "right of return" for millions of "refugees," a formula Israeli officials across the political spectrum warn is code for Israel's destruction by flooding the Jewish state with millions of Arabs, thereby changing its demographics.

When Arab countries attacked the Jewish state after its creation in 1948, some 725,000 Arabs living within Israel's borders fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel. Also at that time, about 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries or fled following rampant persecution.

While most Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel and other countries, the majority of Palestinian Arabs have been maintained in 59 U.N.-run camps that do not seek to settle the Arabs elsewhere. There are currently about 4 million Arabs who claim Palestinian refugee status with the U.N., including children and grandchildren of the original fleeing Arabs, Arabs living full-time in Jordan and Arabs who long ago emigrated throughout the Middle East and to the West.

(05-11-2009 05:32 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Has Obama cut off information to Israel?
Lack of communication 'not normal practice'

---------
Posted: May 10, 2009
6:10 pm Eastern


By Aaron Klein
2009 WorldNetDaily


JERUSALEM – Unlike the Bush administration, the staff of President Obama is not coordinating its policy on Iran or the greater Middle East with Israel and has not been informing the Jewish state of its plans or recent diplomatic developments in the Mideast, according to sources in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office.

The silence extends to U.S. talks with the Palestinians, the sources said.

"Our intention and our hope as we go to Washington is to establish close intimate cooperative relationships on these sensitive matters," a top Netanyahu official told WND yesterday.

The official was speaking about Netanyahu's May 18 visit to the White House.

According to other sources in the prime minister's office, Israel has been obtaining the vast majority of its information regarding U.S. plans and advances for the Middle East from third parties, mostly European diplomats.

This is in stark contrast to Bush's eight-year presidency, during which the White House and State Department routinely briefed Israeli counterparts on Middle East affairs to the extent that the majority of official U.S. and Israeli statements on various policy issues were heavily coordinated.

A recent example of the Obama administration leaving Israel in the dark was information received by Jerusalem officials of a U.S. deadline of October for Iran to show progress in talks over their nuclear program. That deadline was apparently set by Obama's Middle East envoy Dennis Ross.

The information of the deadline – first reported by Haaretz yesterday and confirmed by WND – was discovered in Jerusalem not via U.S. sources but from third party European diplomats who were briefed on the matter.

"Right now there is next to no communication coming to us from the White House," said a source in Netanyahu's office.

The source warned against interpreting the matter as evidencing an anti-Israel bias from the Obama administration.

"Look, there is a new administration in the U.S. and a new one here (in Israel)," the source said. "There hasn't been so much time yet to establish channels."

Still, the source noted the extent of the blackout on information from the U.S. was "not usual practice."

A second source said the lack of communication between Israel and America extends to Israeli-Palestinian affairs. That source described a meeting last month between Netanyahu and another of Obama's Middle East envoys, George Mitchell. The source said the meeting largely was a one-way street, with the prime minister sharing his intended approach to Syria and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said Mitchell outlined Obama's overall strategy for the region but did not update Netanyahu on any talks with the Palestinians or specifics of Obama's intentions.

"Other than the Mitchell meeting, basically there wasn't much other communication at all, period," said the second source. "And we were not informed beforehand of policy statements that were made by Obama or his administration regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including statements Obama made after meeting Jordan's King Abdullah (last month)."

Obama trumpets 'anti-Israel' Arab plan

WND's source said one thing Mitchell did convey to Netanyahu was Obama's alleged plan to help create a Palestinian state in hopes of normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab world in line with the "Arab Peace Initiative." The source said Mitchell relayed that Obama's Middle East strategy would be based on the concept of the "initiative" but with security guarantees for Israel.

Following scores of denials he would trumpet the plan, Obama in January hailed the Arab initiative, which offers normalization of ties with the Jewish state in exchange for extreme Israeli concessions.

In an interview with an Arab television network – his first formal interview as president – Obama stated:

"Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. ... I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace. I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Since then, Obama and his team have trumpeted the plan several more times, including during a meeting last month with Jordan's Abdullah.

The Arab Initiative, originally proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002 and later adopted by the Arab League, states that Israel would receive "normal relations" with the Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem, which includes the Temple Mount.

The West Bank contains important Jewish biblical sites and borders central Israeli population centers, while the Golan Heights looks down on Israeli civilian zones and was twice used by Syria to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state.

The Arab plan also demands the imposition of a non-binding U.N. resolution that calls for so-called Palestinian refugees who wish to move inside Israel to be permitted to do so at the "earliest practicable date."

Palestinians have long demanded the "right of return" for millions of "refugees," a formula Israeli officials across the political spectrum warn is code for Israel's destruction by flooding the Jewish state with millions of Arabs, thereby changing its demographics.

When Arab countries attacked the Jewish state after its creation in 1948, some 725,000 Arabs living within Israel's borders fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel. Also at that time, about 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries or fled following rampant persecution.

While most Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel and other countries, the majority of Palestinian Arabs have been maintained in 59 U.N.-run camps that do not seek to settle the Arabs elsewhere. There are currently about 4 million Arabs who claim Palestinian refugee status with the U.N., including children and grandchildren of the original fleeing Arabs, Arabs living full-time in Jordan and Arabs who long ago emigrated throughout the Middle East and to the West.

If they have the intelligence you guys claim, there would be need our intelligence would they?

(05-11-2009 06:54 PM)RobertN Wrote:  If they have the intelligence you guys claim, there would be need our intelligence would they?

This is about the Ignorant Arrogance of this TOTUS who stomps the backs of all strong U.S. Allies and the runs bowing and slobbering on Murdering Despot Small Minded Dictators and Tyrannical Insane Freaks of Nature.

It would not surprise me if this Dude is giving North Korea tips on building ICBM style Nuke Delivery Systems and hinting that NK should help Iran, Syria, and the Taliban out with sharing the info.

I mean there are a lot of worthless murdering leaders out there to bow to and suck their ring fingers .... why waste time with countries who are ready to fight for you and with you against all the murderers literally dying to kill you and your families down to the smallest child ???

No fun in hanging with our Allies for this guy ...

.

(05-11-2009 06:54 PM)RobertN Wrote:  If they have the intelligence you guys claim, there would be need our intelligence would they?

Now there is a real intelligent statement. STFU

Hopefully this get to Al Jazzera and the like. Maybe for the 1st time we can have an honest dialogue between Isreal and the Palestinians along with other matters in the Middle East. It's hard be a fair minded honest mediator for peace when your having channels of communication, planning out details, and releasing coordinated responses with only one side. This is good news.

(05-11-2009 06:54 PM)RobertN Wrote:  If they have the intelligence you guys claim, there would be need our intelligence would they?

It's hardly surprising that you see no value in intelligence.

(05-12-2009 02:24 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(05-11-2009 06:54 PM)RobertN Wrote:  If they have the intelligence you guys claim, there would be need our intelligence would they?

Now there is a real intelligent statement. STFU

I always knew they wouldn't get any intelligence from you. Go get your head checked. You are delusional.

Israel does have an awfully good intelligence - they probably don't need ours as much as we think. And for some things it doesn't help to have the US and Israel coordinate all their policy statements. It confirms suspicions that we're strictly on Israel's side vs. the Palestinians, when we're supposed to be a mediator between the two.

Why are we supposed to disavow our ally to appease Palestinians, particularly when their leadership consists of various terrorist factions trying to outdo each other?

It is in both the US and Israel's interest to find a peaceful settlement - particularly a two-state solution. The US has tried to mediate the situation for many years, but it would be foolish for the US to alter it's policy just for emotional reasons. It is actually also clearly in the Palestinians interest as well, but those that actually realize this are overwhelmed in the frenzy of terrorism and self-aggrandizing indignation.

Abba Eban in 1973 Said, not Wrote:Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

Abba Eban in 1973 Said, not Wrote:Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

Unfortunately, you can apply this to most of the world.

And don't forget "Inshallah" or "Allah will decide" instead of "lets work hard and get this contract signed in time" or "maybe we shouldn't try to pass this truck on a blind corner."

(05-18-2009 02:40 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Abba Eban in 1973 Said, not Wrote:Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

Unfortunately, you can apply this to most of the world.

And don't forget "Inshallah" or "Allah will decide" instead of "lets work hard and get this contract signed in time" or "maybe we shouldn't try to pass this truck on a blind corner."

No doubt. But, the Palestinian leadership has raised it to new levels of

(05-18-2009 03:46 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-18-2009 02:40 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Abba Eban in 1973 Said, not Wrote:Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

Unfortunately, you can apply this to most of the world.

And don't forget "Inshallah" or "Allah will decide" instead of "lets work hard and get this contract signed in time" or "maybe we shouldn't try to pass this truck on a blind corner."

No doubt. But, the Palestinian leadership has raised it to new levels of

I think the Israelis will recognize Fatah and Abbas as the "legit" representatives of the Palestinians, and then go in and wipe out Gaza and Hamas once and for all.

Hamas is a terrorist organization with defined links to the Iranians. There is no way Benji will ever sit down and discuss anything with Hamas, except their surrender and deportation to somewhere else in the Arab world.

(05-18-2009 04:48 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I think the Israelis will recognize Fatah and Abbas as the "legit" representatives of the Palestinians, and then go in and wipe out Gaza and Hamas once and for all.

No. I heard a discussion (Hudson Institute, or WINEP, or something like that) from someone who I think was a historian but was intimate with Israeli decision making earlier this year. One of the things he said is that one major factor in how far the Israelis were willing to go was the consideration of how it would affect the morale of Israeli society and the soldiers involved. A key consideration has to be the fact that in all of these operations, a very large proportion of the soldiers going into Gaza (as in the massacre of Jenin) are basically civilians who are drafted back into the army for the duration of the conflict, then released back to Israeli society. It's surprising to me that they don't have enough of a standing army to do these operations without heavy use of recalls, but I wonder if they don't want more of the standing army available for defense in the event of an unexpected invasion from one of their neighbors.

(05-18-2009 04:48 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Hamas is a terrorist organization with defined links to the Iranians. There is no way Benji will ever sit down and discuss anything with Hamas, except their surrender and deportation to somewhere else in the Arab world.

I agree completely with this.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he's willing to open peace talks with the Palestinians "immediately," contingent on acceptance of the Jewish state's right to exist.

This is UN242, passed NOVEMBER 22, 1967. If Palestinians haven't accepted it since then, you think they will finally throw down their arms and accept it now? Why, would they do that now, cause the ObamaMessiah said so?

We are no closer to peace now that we were in 1967.

JERUSALEM will never be divided, ever again.

(05-19-2009 12:44 AM)I45owl Wrote:  No. I heard a discussion (Hudson Institute, or WINEP, or something like that) from someone who I think was a historian but was intimate with Israeli decision making earlier this year. One of the things he said is that one major factor in how far the Israelis were willing to go was the consideration of how it would affect the morale of Israeli society and the soldiers involved. A key consideration has to be the fact that in all of these operations, a very large proportion of the soldiers going into Gaza (as in the massacre of Jenin) are basically civilians who are drafted back into the army for the duration of the conflict, then released back to Israeli society.

It's surprising to me that they don't have enough of a standing army to do these operations without heavy use of recalls,

but I wonder if they don't want more of the standing army available for defense in the event of an unexpected invasion from one of their neighbors.

I45, I know you already know this, but I have to believe it is done this way because "ALL" Israeli Citizens are considered Israeli Soldiers regardless of Condition or other reason(s) and are subject to Call-Up at any time.

Most Israelis accept this Obligation with Pride and Verve and feel it a privilege to Serve their Country when called on to do so.

So instead of having a huge "Standing Army" 24/7/365 like we do, each Israeli Citizen already knows they are an Israeli Soldier just waiting to be Activated and Deployed when so needed.

I think this idea is pretty awesome since it makes Israels Military one that spans Coast-to-Coast and Border-to-Border and totally encompasses every Israeli Citizen 365 Days a Year.

I have to think, Strategically speaking, that this is one of the main reasons this nation, which is the size of most peoples back yards, has been so successful in Defending herself all these years and of course having God on your side surely doesn't hurt either ...

.

The Israeli government arguably has more intelligence officers distributed throughout the Middle East than any other country.

Of course, if we're just nice enough to terrorists they won't want to destroy us.

(05-19-2009 01:51 PM)Tripster Wrote:  

(05-19-2009 12:44 AM)I45owl Wrote:  It's surprising to me that they don't have enough of a standing army to do these operations without heavy use of recalls,

I45, I know you already know this, but I have to believe it is done this way because "ALL" Israeli Citizens are considered Israeli Soldiers regardless of Condition or other reason(s) and are subject to Call-Up at any time.

Most Israelis accept this Obligation with Pride and Verve and feel it a privilege to Serve their Country when called on to do so.

There is a mandatory 3 years of service (per wikipedia). The standing army seems to be about 176,000 whereas they can raise it quickly to up to 1.4 million with reserves. How many troops would you estimate would be necessary for Operations like what took place in Gaza and the Massacre of Jenin? I would think that the motivation for using large numbers of reserves has as much to do with politics than military strategy, aside from possibly wanting to retain the active troops in defensive mode to guard against invasion, which is probably a very serious concern.

(05-20-2009 10:53 AM)I45owl Wrote:  There is a mandatory 3 years of service (per wikipedia). The standing army seems to be about 176,000 whereas they can raise it quickly to up to 1.4 million with reserves. How many troops would you estimate would be necessary for Operations like what took place in Gaza and the Massacre of Jenin? I would think that the motivation for using large numbers of reserves has as much to do with politics than military strategy, aside from possibly wanting to retain the active troops in defensive mode to guard against invasion, which is probably a very serious concern.

Really there is no set number or one-size-fits-all, because in my experience, the actual number of needed Troops is "Mission Dependent" if it is a Planned Offensive Strike.

You will need Sniper Positions from high up as well as Mobile Artillery in support - - ever how many Ground Troops it will take to Offensively 'Take & Hold' Positions, Armor and Mechanized as the First Line Offensive Support to the Ground Troops, a Clear Line to Objective #1 using Air Support and Cover - - once Objective #1 has been secured, Snipers, Arty, & Air Support should be used to pound a path to Objective #2 and keep pouring it on to soften up the AO and then the Forward Ground Troops can move on that Objective still having Armor, Mechanized, and Air Support - - and the use of Arty, Air, and Armor guns is contingent on if you have Civilians in the way - - if you do, then it is touch and go with Ground Troops and Small Arms and Crew Serve Support at the Forward Positions - - if no Civilians to worry about, pound it all into the stone age.

Honestly, I would have to have good Intel on enemy Troop Strength and how well they were Positioned and Fortified along with how well they were Supplied and if they purposely positioned them selves up against Civilians before I could give a semi-accurate number of Troops I would Deploy and how I would Deploy them and with what Support Equipment I would let them open up with.

And I am of the experience that Sling-Shot'd Rocks can easily kill and seriously wound Troops, so Rock Throwers get no pass if I am running this campaign.

Oppositely, if I am having to repel an attack and are in Defense Posture, then I would have to say as many Troops as can be strategically and properly deployed to defend the entire perimeter and too quickly get all Crew Serve and Stationary and Mechanized Support Units in place and turn them loose on the Attackers/Insurgents full bore.

Then once we had some sort of handle on the situation, we would switch into more of an Offensive Posture if we were able or stay Defensive until we were better able to move forward.

Number of Troops still all Mission Dependent and Situation Dependent .... how many Attackers do we believe are out there ... what are their Strengths and Where and What are their Weaknesses as per Weapons, Support, Supply Lines, Fortifications, Proximity to Civilians.

Once we get a handle on what we are dealing with, then we can better assess if we can Cut Loose and just bombard them with so much stuff they have to move way back or are we stuck where we have to go pretty much Target-by-Target so as to not risk the lives of Non-Combatants.

So much to absorb in such a short time frame that sometimes you have to just let loose because while you are holding back, the Aggressor is picking your Troops off like leaves on a tree and you can not have that if it means being overran and a lot of your Troops Killed or Wounded.

And the way things go from fairly peaceful to totally nutz on any given Israeli day, I know they have to keep enough Active Troops Posted as a means of quick 'reaction' and then they can quickly pull up any Troops that are in reserve to supplement those already on the line.

And as always, if it gets really bad, they can call up "Everybody".

They do very very well defending them selves and they have had to go thru some nasty battles where they were just completely outnumbered and they spun it around and won the battle.

They are Awesome Soldiers that is for sure.

.

They've been fighting the war in the Middle East for thousands of years - long before the birth of Jesus. Rome couldn't stop it. The Crusades couldn't stop it. I don't know why people seem to think the USA can solve it. Intelligence is irrelevant in the face of hatreds passed down from generation to generation. There is no intelligence in such matters...

(05-20-2009 08:05 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  They've been fighting the war in the Middle East for thousands of years - long before the birth of Jesus. Rome couldn't stop it. The Crusades couldn't stop it. I don't know why people seem to think the USA can solve it. Intelligence is irrelevant in the face of hatreds passed down from generation to generation. There is no intelligence in such matters...

They've been fighting wars in Europe for thousands of years. Maybe we shoulda just let those Jews fend for themselves?