Personally, I hope that Obama has the guts to put the Jews in their place.
It is time that somebody did. Past American presidents certainly haven't
done it. They have all caved in to pressure from powerful Jewish lobby
groups, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that is mentioned
in this article.

If US presidents weren't so beholden to, and so dependent upon Jewish money
to get elected, the current situation would not even exist in the Middle
East. The US Government would have put REAL pressure on the Israelis to make
peace with the Palestinians years ago.

All the US has to do is to withdraw a substantial portion of its economic
and military support to Israel, and that will get their attention. If Obama
caves in, he will prove that he is just another Jewish puppet, just like the
presidents before him.

Sooner or later, God's Word seems to indicate that there will be a
breakthrough. There will be a peace agreement, even if it is short-lived and
lasts for only a few years, long enough for the Jews to build their final
temple...and we know where things will go from there.


Obama Speech Signals a U.S. Shift on Middle East

By MARK LANDLER and HELENE COOPER - NYT

April 14, 2010


WASHINGTON -- It was just a phrase at the end of President Obama's news
conference on Tuesday, but it was a stark reminder of a far-reaching shift
in how the United States views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how
aggressively it might push for a peace agreement.

When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute
was a "vital national security interest of the United States," he was
highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top
officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American
interests.

This shift, described by administration officials who did not want to be
quoted by name when discussing internal discussions, is driving the White
House's urgency to help broker a Middle East peace deal. It increases the
likelihood that Mr. Obama, frustrated by the inability of the Israelis and
the Palestinians to come to terms, will offer his own proposed parameters
for an eventual Palestinian state.

Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up "costing
us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure" -- drawing an explicit
link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American
soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan
and elsewhere.

Mr. Obama's words reverberated through diplomatic circles in large part
because they echoed those of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the military commander
overseeing America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent Congressional
testimony, the general said that the lack of progress in the Middle East
created a hostile environment for the United States. He has denied reports
that he was suggesting that soldiers were being put in harm's way by
American support for Israel.

But the impasse in negotiations "does create an environment," he said
Tuesday in a speech in Washington. "It does contribute, if you will, to the
overall environment within which we operate."

The glimmers of daylight between United States and Israeli interests began
during President George W. Bush's administration, when the United States
became mired in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Three years ago, Condoleezza
Rice, then secretary of state, declared during a speech in Jerusalem that a
peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians was a "strategic
interest" of
the United States. In comments that drew little notice at the time, she
said, "The prolonged experience of deprivation and humiliation can
radicalize even normal people."

But President Bush shied away from challenging Israeli governments.

The Obama administration's new thinking, and the tougher policies toward
Israel that could flow from it, has alarmed American Jewish leaders
accustomed to the Bush administration's steadfast support. They are not used
to seeing issues like Jewish housing in the West Bank or East Jerusalem
linked, even by implication, to the security of American soldiers. Some fret
that it raises questions about the centrality of the American alliance with
Israel, which the administration flatly denies.

"In the past, the problem of who drinks out of whose well in Nablus has not
been a strategic interest of the United States," said Martin S. Indyk, a
former United States ambassador to Israel and the vice president and the
director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. He said there was
an interest now because of the tens of thousands of troops fighting Islamist
insurgencies abroad at the same time that the United States was trying to
curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"Will resolving the Palestinian issue solve everything?" Mr. Indyk said.
"No. But will it help us get there? Yes."

The administration's immediate priority, officials said, is jump-starting
indirect talks between Israelis and Palestinians. There is still a vigorous
debate inside the administration about what to do if such talks were to go
nowhere, which experts said is the likeliest result, given the history of
such negotiations. Some officials, like Gen. James L. Jones, the national
security adviser, advocate putting forward an American peace plan, while
others, like the longtime Middle East peace negotiator Dennis B. Ross, who
now works in the National Security Council, favor a more incremental
approach.

Last week, National Security Council officials met with outside Middle East
experts to discuss the Arab Israeli conflict. Two weeks before, General
Jones and Mr. Obama met with several national security advisers from
previous administrations and discussed putting forward an American proposal,
even though it would put pressure on both Israel and the Palestinians.

Several officials point out that Mr. Obama has now seized control of Middle
East policy himself, particularly since the controversy several weeks ago
when Israeli authorities announced new Jewish housing units in Jerusalem
during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Mr. Obama,
incensed by that snub, has given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a list of
demands, and relations between the United States and Israel have fallen into
a chilly standoff.

"The president is re-evaluating the tactics his administration is employing
toward Israel and the entire Middle East," said Robert Wexler, a former
Democratic congressman who resigned in January to lead the Center for Middle
East Peace, a Washington-based nonprofit institution that is working for a
peace agreement.

"I don't think that anybody believes American lives are endangered or
materially affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," said Mr. Wexler,
who has close ties to administration officials. "That's an
oversimplification. However, you'd have to have blinders on not to recognize
that there are issues in one arena that affect other arenas."

For their part, administration officials insist that their support for
Israel is unwavering. They point to intensive cooperation between the
American and Israeli militaries, which they say has allowed Israel to retain
a military edge over its neighbors.

The sense of urgency in Washington comes just as many Israelis have become
disillusioned with the whole idea of resolving the conflict. Mr. Netanyahu's
right-wing coalition government has long been skeptical about the benefits
of a peace deal with the Palestinians. But skepticism has taken root in the
Israeli public as well, particularly after Israel saw little benefit from
its traumatic withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Among American Jewish groups, there is less skepticism than alarm about the
administration's new direction. On Tuesday, the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, publicized letters
to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, signed by 76 senators and 333
House members, that implored the administration to defuse tensions.

In an open letter to Mr. Obama from the World Jewish Congress, the
organization's president, Ronald S. Lauder, asked, "Why does the thrust of
this administration's Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack
of movement on peace talks?"

Mr. Lauder, who said the letter was scheduled to be published Thursday as an
advertisement in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, said he
discussed the letter with Mr. Netanyahu and received his support before
taking out the ad.



Jeff Snyder, SysOp - Armageddon BBS  Visit us at endtimeprophecy.org port 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Download Center 4 Mac BBS Software & Christian Files.  We Use Hermes II


--- Hermes Web Tosser 1.1