Kevin and Andy ! Maher's Interview With Bibi! Amb. Prosser Speaks Reality to The UNSC! Hillary Will Return Them To The Plantation!

Our grandson Kevin and his fiance, Andy.  Kevin and Andy's plane was delayed so he asked the stewardess could he used the cabin audio system and he proposed using the mike.

Kevin is an NBC Affiliate investigative reporter in Little Rock and his new position will be the same in Nashville.

He begins his new post in June and Andy will be completing her Bachelor Degree in Art Decoration!

Andy and Kevin are well suited and we are delighted.
===
lt;
===
Sent to me by a friend, fellow memo reader and conservative:

"What does it say about the American press and the anti-semitic left that, to get a fair interview with Benjamin Netanyahu, you have to go back to 2013 and Bill Maher? When you watch it today, Bibi's predictions are so spot-on they’re chilling. I’m sure a lot of conservatives probably missed this interview when it first came out because, hey, it’s Bill Maher. It’s also the most honest interview I’ve ever seen with the Prime Minister.

http://goo.gl/5csavW"

This also sent by a dear friend, conservative and fellow memo reader.

I have not checked the accuracy but the messages stand the test of time so "what difference does it make." (See 1 below.)
===
More commentary about Obama's incompetency.  (See 2 below.)

As I noted in a previous memo, BIBI was telling the truth, Obama , as usual, was lying. (See 2a below.)

Meanwhile, Amb. Prosser tells the UN Security Council what it needs to hear.  Nothing will change, however. (See 2b below.)
===
I sincerely doubt anything will alter liberal Jews love of the Democrat Party.  Obama might lose some of the faithful but Hillary will bring them back to the  plantation! (See 3 below.)
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Five lessons about the way we treat others

1 - First Important Lesson - Cleaning Lady.

During my second month of college, our professor

Gave us a pop quiz.  I breezed through the questions until I read

The last one:


"What is the first name of the woman who cleans the school?"

Surely this was some kind of joke.  I had seen the

Cleaning woman several times.  She was tall,

Dark-haired, and in her 50's, but how would I know her name?



I handed in my paper, leaving the last question

Blank.   Just before class ended, one student asked if

The last question would count toward our quiz grade.



"Absolutely, " said the professor.  "In your careers,

You will meet many people.  All are significant and

Deserve your attention and care, even if all you do

Is smile and say "hello."



I've never forgotten that lesson.  I also learned her

Name was Dorothy. 

2. - Second Important Lesson - Pick up in the Rain.



One night, at 11:30 p.m., an older African American

Woman was standing on the side of an Alabama highway

Trying to endure a lashing rain storm.  Her car had

Broken down and she desperately needed a ride.

Soaking wet, she decided to flag down the next car.

A young white man stopped to help her, generally

Unheard of in those conflict-filled 1960's.  The man

Took her to safety, helped her get assistance, and

Put her into a taxicab.



She seemed to be in a big hurry, but wrote down his

Address and thanked him.  Seven days went by and a

Knock came on the man's door.  To his surprise, a

Giant console color TV was delivered to his home.

A note was attached.



It read:

"Thank you so much for assisting me on the highway

The other night.  The rain drenched not only my

Clothes, but also my spirits.  Then you came along.

Because of you, I was able to make it to my dying

Husband's' bedside just before he passed away.  God

Bless you for helping me and unselfishly serving

Others."



Sincerely,

Mrs. Nat King Cole. 

3 - Third Important Lesson - Always remember those Who serve.


In the days when an ice cream sundae cost much less,
A 10-year-old boy entered a hotel coffee shop and
Sat at a table.  A waitress put a glass of water in
Front of him.

"How much is an ice cream sundae?" he asked.
"Fifty cents," replied the waitress.


The little boy pulled his hand out of his pocket and
Studied the coins in it.  "Well, how much is a plain dish

of ice cream?" he inquired.


By now more people were waiting for a table and the
Waitress was growing impatient.

"Thirty-five cents," she brusquely replied.
The little boy again counted his coins.

"I'll have the plain ice cream," he said.
The waitress brought the ice cream, put the bill on
The table and walked away.  The boy finished his ice
Cream, paid the cashier and left.  When the waitress
Came back, she began to cry as she wiped down
the Table.  There, placed neatly beside the empty dish,
Were two nickels and five pennies.

You see, he couldn't have the sundae, because he had
To have enough left to leave her a tip. 
4 - Fourth Important Lesson. - The obstacle in Our Path.

In ancient times, a King had a boulder placed on a
Roadway.  Then he hid himself and watched to see if
Anyone would remove the huge rock.  Some of the
King's' wealthiest merchants and courtiers came by
And simply walked around it.  Many loudly blamed the
King for not keeping the roads clear, but none did
Anything about getting the stone out of the way.

Then a peasant carrying a load of vegetables came along.

Upon approaching the boulder, the peasant laid

Down his burden and tried to move the

Stone to the side of the road.

After much effort, he finally succeeded.

When the peasant picked up his load of vegetables,

He noticed a purse lying

In the road where the boulder had been.

The purse contained many gold coins and a note

from the King indicating that the gold was for the
person who removed the boulder from the roadway.

The peasant learned what many of us never understand!
Every obstacle presents an opportunity to improve
our condition. 

5 - Fifth Important Lesson - Giving When it Counts.


Many years ago, when I worked as a volunteer at a
Hospital, I got to know a little girl named Liz who
Was suffering from a rare & serious disease.

Her only chance of

Recovery appeared to be a blood
Transfusion from her 5-year old brother,

Who had miraculously survived

The same disease and had developed the antibodies

Needed to combat the illness.

The doctor explained the situation to her

Little brother, and asked the

Little boy if he would
Be willing to give his blood to his sister.

I saw him hesitate for only a

Moment before taking a deep breath and saying,

"Yes I'll do it if it will save her."

As the transfusion progressed, he lay in bed
Next to his sister and smiled,

as we all did, seeing the color returning to her cheek.

Then his face grew pale and his smile faded.

He looked up at the doctor and asked with

A trembling voice,

"Will I start to die right away?"

Due to his youth, the little boy had

Misunderstood the doctor;

He thought he was going to have to

Give his sister all of his blood in order to save her.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)

Appearing at the White House with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, President Obama was asked about Russia’s sale of surface-to-air missiles to Iran. His response was; “the sale was slated to happen in 2009, when I first met with then-Prime Minister Putin.” He added: “They actually stopped the sale, paused or suspended the sale at our request. And I’m frankly surprised that it held this long, given that they were not prohibited by sanctions from selling these defensive weapons,” continued the president.

This response by the President of the United States is not only surprising but scary. While jumping on the opportunity to take credit for Putin’s delay of the sale, Mr. Obama has either forgotten or is trying to hoodwink the American people. Putin has been selling military equipment to the Khomeinist regime for decades, however, these missiles were too costly and Iran was under sanctions.

It’s worth noting that in 2010 Khamenei was eager to buy the missiles on credit but the Russians are known to do only cash in advance business when it comes to their trusted allies in Tehran, who were under banking and credit sanctions and did not have access to the funds for making big purchases.

Without a doubt, Russia has been in need of money at least for the last two years as a result of the sanctions and the drop in oil prices. But Putin also has a political goal: to kick America out of the Middle East and reconstruct the old Soviet sphere of influence while taking advantage of the present American policy opportunity.

Putin has chosen the Islamic regime in Iran as a partner to regain a foothold in the Middle East, and he is determined to do it before January of 2017. Putin is aware of the opposition of the Iranian people to Russian militarization and the endangerment of their country, but to himself and his Islamic partners, citizens don’t count.  

If the president is truly wondering why Putin waited to sell the missiles to Tehran, all he needs to do is to consider the sanctions that depleted Khamenei’s cash.

President Obama continued: “When I say I’m not surprised, given some of the deterioration in the relationship between Russia and the United States, and the fact that their economy is under strain and this was a substantial sale. I do think that it sends a message about how important it is for us to look like we are credible in negotiations if in fact a deal fails, and we are needing to maintain sanctions.”

I wonder if the Russian negotiators helped shape the demands of the Islamic regime to get President Obama to release the $11.9 billion in cash that Khamenei needed to buy the missiles. So far, that looks to be the case. Under President Obama’s “leadership” the deal will not fail because Khamenei and Putin are getting everything they want. But if the interim agreement collapses, Khamenei will not have the money to purchase more arms and missiles from Russia, China, or Korea.

The negotiations and policies of the 5+1 states (which just happen to include Russia) have provided tens of billions of dollars from the frozen assets of the people of Iran to Khamenei and his Revolutionary Guards to pay for more arms, missiles, and materials for the development and delivery of their nuclear bomb.

The president also said: “Since Russian companies made the $900 million equipment sale, why should we take the loss?” Mr. Obama is mistaken -- all this “hurry up and make any deal” will do nothing to make Khamenei do business with America.

Many know that Khamenei will not be a friend of the United States and will not pay back any of the money by purchasing “equipment” from the Great Satan. Khamenei is still chanting “Death to America” from his international pulpit with his paramilitary forces on the loose in the streets of Iran. This is a well-known fact -- the Shia clerics in Iran hate America because the people of Iran like her contagious and enticing culture of human rights and freedom. The mullahs however, have historically enjoyed a mutually beneficial and palsy relationship with the Russians. They even offered Khamenei a college degree, thanks to his full ride scholarship at the KGB-run People’s Friendship University.

It is sad that foreign policy of the United States is in the hands of a group of  wishful thinkers who are strict ideologues and have no knowledge of the world history and no interest in supporting America’s friends.

This is how America loses friends and allies, in droves, across the globe.

2a) Obama Kept Iran's Short Breakout Time a Secret 

By Eli Lake

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-21/obama-kept-iran-s-short-breakout-time-a-secret

The Barack Obama administration has estimated for years that Iran was at
most three months away from enriching enough nuclear fuel for an atomic
bomb. But the administration only declassified this estimate at the
beginning of the month, just in time for the White House to make the case
for its Iran deal to Congress and the public.

Speaking to reporters and editors at our Washington bureau on Monday, Energy
Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the U.S. has assessed for several
years that Iran has been two to three months away from producing enough
fissile material for a nuclear weapon. When asked how long the
administration has held this assessment, Moniz said: "Oh quite some time."
He added: "They are now, they are right now spinning, I mean enriching with
9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000. Plus all the . . . . R&D
work. If you put that together it's very, very little time to go forward.
That's the 2-3 months."

Brian Hale, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, confirmed to me Monday that the two-to-three-month estimate
for fissile material was declassified on April 1.

Here is the puzzling thing: When Obama began his second term in 2013, he
sang a different tune. He emphasized that Iran was more than a year away
from a nuclear bomb, without mentioning that his intelligence community
believed it was only two to three months away from making enough fuel for
one, long considered the most challenging task in building a weapon. Today
Obama emphasizes that Iran is only two to three months away from acquiring
enough fuel for a bomb, creating a sense of urgency for his Iran agreement.

Back in 2013, when Congress was weighing new sanctions on Iran and Obama was
pushing for more diplomacy, his interest was in tamping down that sense of
urgency. On the eve of a visit to Israel, Obama told Israel's Channel Two,
"Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually
develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close."

On Oct. 5 of that year, Obama contrasted the U.S. view of an Iranian
breakout with that of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who at
the time said Iran was only six months away from nuclear capability. Obama
told the Associated Press, "Our assessment continues to be a year or more
away. And in fact, actually, our estimate is probably more conservative than
the estimates of Israeli intelligence services."

Ben Caspit, an Israeli journalist and columnist for Al-Monitor, reported
last year that Israel's breakout estimate was also two to three months away.

A year ago, after the nuclear talks started, Secretary of State John Kerry
dropped the first hint about the still-classified Iran breakout estimate. He
told a Senate panel, "I think it is fair to say, I think it is public
knowledge today, that we are operating with a time period for a so-called
breakout of about two months."

David Albright, a former weapons inspector and president of the Institute
for Science and International Security, told me administration officials
appeared to be intentionally unspecific in 2013, when the talking points
used the 12-months-plus timeline. "They weren't clear at all about what this
one-year estimate meant, but people like me who said let's break it down to
the constituent pieces in terms of time to build a bomb were rebuffed," he
said. Albright's group released its own breakout timetable that focused
solely on the production of highly enriched uranium, not the weapon itself.
It concluded Iran was potentially less than a month away.

When USA Today asked a spokeswoman for the National Security Council about
Albright's estimate, she responded that the intelligence community
maintained a number of estimates for how long Iran would take to produce
enough material for a weapon.

"They have made it very hard for those of us saying, let's just focus on
weapons-grade uranium, there is this shorter period of time and not a year,"
Albright told me. "If you just want a nuclear test device to blow up
underground, I don't think you need a year."

This view is supported by a leaked document from the International Atomic
Energy Agency, first published by the Associated Press in 2009. Albright's
group published excerpts from the IAEA assessment that concluded Iran "has
sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion
nuclear device based upon (highly enriched uranium) as the fission fuel."

Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst who is now an Iran expert at the
Brookings Institution, told me that most of the technical estimates about an
Iranian breakout were not nearly as precise as they are sometimes portrayed
in the press. "The idea there is such a thing as a hard and fast formula for
this is nonsense," he said. "All the physicists come up with different
answers depending on what inputs they use."

In this way, Obama's new, more alarmist figure of two to three months
provides a key selling point for the framework reached this month in
Switzerland. When Obama announced the preliminary agreement on April 2, he
said one benefit was that if it were finalized, "even if it violated the
deal, for the next decade at least, Iran would be a minimum of a year away
from acquiring enough material for a bomb."

Hence the frustration of Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman
of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. "We've been
researching their claim that a deal would lengthen the breakout time for
Iran from two to three months to a year," he told me of the administration.
"We're just trying to confirm any of their numbers and we can't confirm or
make sense of what they are referencing."

Nunes should hurry. The Iranian nuclear deal is scheduled to breakout in
less than three months.

2a)

With 4 questions - Amb Prosor addresses UNSC on the situation in the Middle East

On Passover we ask what has changed. Today, I am here to tell you that unless this Council stops singling out Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, and starts focusing on the real threats in our region - nothing will ever change. Amb Prosor addresses UNSC on the situation in the Middle East Amb Prosor: Iran is the engine of aggression behind the chaos in our region. As Iranian influence spreads, so does tyranny, subjugation, and terrorism. Imagine how much more dangerous the situation will become if Iran is allowed to snap open a nuclear umbrella. Mr. President, Let me begin by thanking the Secretary-General for his briefing. I also want to thank the Jordanian Foreign Minister for being here today to preside over this session. Mr. President, Earlier this month, Jews throughout the world celebrated Passover which commemorates the liberation of the ancient Jews from enslavement and the birth of the Jewish nation. The seder begins with the youngest child in the family asking four questions known as the “Ma Nish’tana.” The child is asking what has changed and why this night is different from all other nights. We answer the questions by recounting the story of how freedom triumphed over oppression. The lessons are as relevant today as they were 3,000 years ago. For centuries, the Jewish people longed for, prayed for, and fought for the right to be free. Israel is the realization of those dreams – and Passover reminds us that we can never take these freedoms for granted. Since our last debate, the chaos in our region has only grown worse. Another nation state has been overrun by radical extremists. First Syria, then Iraq, then Libya, and now Yemen. The extreme elements in our region have displayed a level of barbarism that is shocking even by Middle Eastern standards. The situation has become so dire that - in a rare display of unity - the Arab leaders have joined forces. It should come as no surprise that they have lashed out with little regard for the consequences. The Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen have hit humanitarian aid convoys, hospitals, schools, and civilian neighborhoods, and left entire families dead. And yet there have been zero Human Rights Council condemnations and zero calls for a Commission of Inquiry. If Jane Austen were writing about the United Nations today, her book could be called Pride and Prejudice, but a more fitting title would be Hypocrisy and Double Standard. You would think that some of the Arab nations would demand justice. After all, the Saudi ambassador was quick to stand at the side of the Palestinian representative during last summer’s Gaza conflict and preach about civilian life. The truth of the matter is that when Israel is at the heart of a crisis, the Arabs don’t miss a beat. But when fingers can’t be pointed at Israel, some Arab nations are downright heartless. On Passover we ask what has changed. Today, I am here to tell you that unless this Council stops singling out Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, and starts focusing on the real threats in our region - nothing will ever change. Mr. President, Just as we ask four questions on Passover to tell the story of freedom, today I offer four questions to explain why freedom and peace remain a distant dream in the Middle East. The First Question: What has changed when it comes to Iran? The answer is that Iran is more dangerous today than ever before. Make no mistake: Iran is not only a threat to Israel and it is not only a threat to the Middle East; it is a threat to the entire world. Iran is the engine of aggression behind the chaos in our region. It has armed Hezbollah, which today has over 100,000 missiles hidden in civilian neighborhoods. Hezbollah is playing a dangerous game of Russian roulette. Instead of betting on red or black, they’re now gambling everything on the Blue Line. Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups surround Israel. There is Hezbollah in the Syrian Golan and Southern Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza. The Iranian doctrine is apparent from Baghdad to Beirut and from Damascus to Sanaa; terrorists committing a double war crime - hiding behind civilians, while targeting civilians. As Iranian influence spreads, so does tyranny, subjugation, and terrorism. In the last four years alone, it has committed or ordered attacks in 25 countries on five continents. I’m sure the representative from Bahrain hasn’t forgotten the last time Iran meddled in his country’s internal affairs. Much as I suspect the Saudi ambassador in Washington still remembers the bitter cup of coffee he had at Cafe Milano. Imagine how much more dangerous the situation will become – in our region and around the world - if Iran is allowed to snap open a nuclear umbrella. Iran is cunning and it is fanatical. And yet the international community is willing to allow the regime to keep its thousands of centrifuges, continue developing its long-range ballistic missiles, and conceal the military dimensions of its nuclear program. What message are you sending when you reward an outlaw regime for violating Security Council resolutions and international law? Ayatollah Khamenei lies, deceives, and betrays even more than Frank Underwood. The two of them would get on like a House of Cards on fire. And what about President Rouhani? One of his first acts as president was to appoint Mostafa Pourmohammadi known in Iran as the “Minister of Murder” - as his minister of justice. He has lived up to his name. Last year, Iran executed 753 people - that’s the highest total recorded in the past 12 years. Iran is one of the world’s worst human rights offenders, the primary sponsor of global terrorism, and it is behind much of the chaos ravaging the Middle East. If the international community gives Iran its support by signing a nuclear agreement, the regime will be more dangerous than ever before. Mr. President, The Second Question: What has changed when it comes to Hamas? The answer is nothing. Hamas continues to abuse its people and wage war against Israel. Last summer, Hamas proved its utter disregard for the wellbeing of the Palestinian people. It hid its rockets in schools, fired missiles from hospitals, and used civilians as human shields. Today, Hamas is once again disregarding the needs of its people as it rearms and rebuilds its terror infrastructure. Earlier this month, Israeli authorities revealed that Hamas is using the Kerem Shalom crossing – the only humanitarian crossing into Gaza - to hide tons of dual-use items inside shipments of humanitarian goods. The smuggled materials are used to rebuild tunnels, reconstruct training camps, and manufacture rockets. Since Operation Protective Edge, Hamas has test fired over 150 rockets. With every test rocket launched into the sea, Hamas propels itself towards another conflict. Just last week, a senior Hamas leader issued a new call for Palestinians to kidnap Israelis. It may just be my hearing, but I’ve yet to hear a single UN official report any of these inflammatory developments. Some members of this institution refuse to name Hamas even as the terrorist group ignites tensions in our region and ignites UN offices. In January, Hamas members looted and set fire to the UNSCO offices in Gaza. This Council does no favors to the Palestinian people by failing to hold Hamas to account. I don’t hear any criticisms of Hamas for denying their people freedoms or for failing to hold free elections. The closest Hamas has gotten to a campaign is the social media campaign it ran earlier this year. In an effort to improve its image, Hamas encouraged people to ask questions on Twitter using the hashtag ‘AskHamas.’ A number of important questions were posed to the terrorist group. Questions like: How does Hamas prevent repetitive strain injury from firing dozens of rockets into Israel in a single day? Does Hamas think it’s better to hide its weapons in a hospital’s pediatric or geriatric unit? And is Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal right or left-handed? From the safety of his luxury hotel room in Doha, he seems equally adept at ordering room service with one hand, while ordering terrorist attacks with the other. It’s time for a change. This Council must see Hamas for what it is and call it what it is - an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Stop giving Hamas a free pass and start giving Israelis and Palestinians a chance for a better future. The Third Question: What has changed when it comes to the Palestinian leadership? If nothing has changed with Hamas, why would you expect anything to have changed with President Abbas? President Abbas claims to support the two-state solution, but apparently that message gets lost in translation because you will never hear him make this claim in Arabic. He insists that Palestinian refugees be allowed to flood the Jewish state. So in truth he is committed to the creation of two Palestinian states. President Abbas also claims to oppose terrorism, but his government forged a pact with a terrorist organization, pays salaries to convicted terrorists, and incites violent attacks against Israelis. Last month, the Palestinian Authority dedicated a monument in Ramallah to the terrorist responsible for the murder of 37 Israeli civilians. If that weren’t bad enough, the monument is in the shape of what the Palestinian Authority describes as “Palestine” and it includes all of the State of Israel, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea. The Palestinians want a state without making compromises, making concessions, or making peace. I want to be clear. Israel is in favor of a Palestinian state that would end the conflict. On three separate occasions, Israel offered the Palestinians a state and on all three occasions, the Palestinians refused the deal or walked away from the table. The very last thing Israel can afford is another terror state in its backyard. Just imagine what this state would look like. We got a preview when Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005. Hamas took over the Gaza Strip and created a terror stronghold. Given the chance, Hamas would gladly create a second terror state in Judea and Samaria. This terror state may as well be called ISIL – which stands for Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. It would be sponsored by Iran and as volatile as Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. Hamas is terrorizing the people of Gaza and the Palestinian Authority isn’t doing anything about it. It has ignored its oversight obligations to ensure that construction materials are not channeled into terror activities. And it has not imposed sanctions on merchants selling cement on the black market. In contrast, Israel has fully cooperated with the trilateral Gaza reconstruction mechanism and overseen the transfer of tens of thousands of tons of construction supplies. If President Abbas is serious about making peace, he must break his alliance with Hamas, put an end to the incitement, and return to direct negotiations with Israel. Mr. President, The Fourth Question: What has changed when it comes to the international community? Winston Churchill once said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Month after month, individuals in this Chamber argue that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a territorial dispute that can be resolved by addressing the quote-unquote ‘root causes.’ This lie has circled the world countless times. The fact of the matter is that our conflict is not about the right place for Israel’s borders. It’s about Israel’s right to exist in the first place. Israel stands for democracy, for human rights, and for freedom. Last month, the Jewish state held its 20th national election - that’s 20 more free and fair elections than Qatar and Iran have ever held. And yet, members of this institution question Israel’s democratic nature and focus disproportionately on our conflict. This debate is called the Situation in the Middle East, but listening to today’s briefing, one would think that the only thing going on in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The world’s unrelenting focus on our conflict is an injustice to tens of millions of victims of tyranny and terrorism in the Middle East. One has to wonder why the Palestinians deserve more time and attention than the Yemenis, the Syrians and the Libyans put together. It’s time to focus global attention where it belongs – on terrorists and their sponsors. The enemies of freedom are trying to drive us back to the Dark Ages. They deny women their freedom, they censor the media, they dictate how religion must be practiced, and they impose their radical way of life through barbaric acts of violence. Israel is on the frontline of this fight, but it is not just Israel’s fight. It is the fight of anyone who believes in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. The Jewish people have fought for these rights for generations. Israel was one of the first countries in the world to screen people in airports. For its efforts to protect passengers, Israel was criticized for putting travelers through what was called an invasive ordeal. Three decades later, Israel’s once quote-unquote “insensitive” policies have become the standard procedure in every airport across the globe. In its short history, Israel has repeatedly confronted the moral dilemmas that go hand-in-hand with combating terrorism long before other democracies have woken up to the threat. Make no mistake; Israel’s battle today will determine how we all live tomorrow. Mr. President, Tomorrow, Israel will commemorate Yom Hazikaron and honor the 23,320 individuals who lost their lives to war and terror. We will remember the brave soldiers who died so that we can have our freedom and mourn the thousands of men, women, and children who were robbed of their lives simply because they were Israeli. War has never been the choice of the State of Israel. Our choice is and always has been the path of peace. But when war and terror are forced upon us, we will not surrender and we will not back down. For nearly 2,000 years, the Jewish people were stateless and powerless in the face of hatred and indifference. Those days are no more. On Thursday, Israel will celebrate Yom Haatzmaut, our 67th anniversary as a free and independent Jewish state. With great joy and with heads held high, we will celebrate the realization of the words in our national anthem, Hatikvah: Our hope will not be lost, The hope of two thousand years, To be a free people in our own land, The land of Zion and Jerusalem. Thank you, Mr. President.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Would Iran Deal Imperil Jews' Loyalty to Democratic Party?

By Andrew Kohut 

If nothing else, the coming political battle between President Obama and the Republican-controlled Congress over the potential Iran nuclear deal underscores one of the biggest anomalies in American politics. Republicans have become much stronger backers of Israel than Democrats over the years, yet American Jews have remained Democrats for the most part.

However, given the stakes for Israel with respect to Iran, it’s an open question as to whether long-standing Jewish support for the Democratic Party will be threatened.  One worrisome sign for the Democrats is a recent Gallup Poll finding declining support for Obama among Jewish Americans who strongly backed the president in both of his presidential elections.  But while there is a lot of recent history showing that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has not made a political difference to Jews, many of whom have been critical of Israel in that regard, the potential Iranian threat may well be different.

********

Historically, political polarization has increased markedly on one of the most basic polling measures with respect to support for Israel. In July 2014, by a margin of 73 percent to 44 percent, Republicans were more apt than Democrats to say they are sympathetic to Israeli rather than the Palestinians in the Middle East conflict.  When this question was first asked in the late 1970s, about equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats said they were more pro-Israel: 49 percent and 44 percent, respectively. The pro-Israel partisan gap widened substantially in the last decade following the 9/11 attacks as Republicans became much more likely to back Israeli over the Palestinians while Democratic opinion changed little.

Republicans are not only politically more supportive of Israel in the Middle East conflict, they are much more likely than Democrats to believe that God gave Israel to the Jewish people. A 2013 Pew Research survey found a 58 percent majority of Republicans holding this view, compared with only 36 percent of Democrats and 42 percent of Independents.  Analysis of the survey suggests that this is partly because Republicans are more likely to believe in God than Democrats. But even when the comparison is limited only to people who believe in God, Republicans are still significantly more inclined than Democrats to hold the view that  God gave Israel to the Jewish people.

Remarkably, despite growing support for Israel among Republicans over the past decade, there is little sign that Jews have become more attracted to the Republican Party in recent years.  In its most recent in-depth analysis of trends in party affiliation, the Pew Research Center wrote, “Jews continue to mostly align with the Democratic Party. Nearly twice as many Jews identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (61 percent) than identify as Republicans or lean Republican (31 percent),” and this pattern is little different than it was in the early 1990s (65 percent-32 percent in 1992).

While most Jews are indeed strong backers of Israel, the polling data suggests that the generally liberal ideology of Jewish Americans continues to align with their long-standing affinity to the Democratic Party. In the Pew Research Center’s 2014 aggregate surveys, 41 percent of Jewish respondents described themselves as liberals, compared with 24 percent of the public at large.

Relatedly, views of some Israeli policies may well be a factor that ameliorates the partisan issue for Jews. A major groundbreaking Pew Research Center survey of 3,475 American Jews in 2013 reported that “about seven-in-ten Jews surveyed say they feel either very attached (30 percent) or somewhat attached (39 percent) to Israel.”

At the same time, the survey reported that “many American Jews express reservations about Israel’s approach to the peace process. Just 38 percent say the Israeli government is making a sincere effort to establish peace with the Palestinians. (Fewer still – 12 percent – think Palestinian leaders are sincerely seeking peace with Israel.) And just 17 percent of American Jews think the continued building of settlements in the West Bank is helpful to Israel’s security; 44 percent say that settlement construction hurts Israel’s own security interests.”

Nonetheless, Obama’s proposed deal with Iran, in light of Israeli concerns about it, could significantly weaken long-standing Jewish American allegiances to the Democratic Party.  Gallup recently reported approval of Obama among Jews declining from 64 percent in 2013 to 54 percent in 2015, and went on to note that highly religious Jews in the Gallup sample were least positive about the president.

Gallup speculated that whether this trend will continue or reverse itself “will depend in part on the future of the relationship between Obama and Israeli leadership. This in turn will reflect the status of the pending agreement with Iran that would restrict that country's nuclear activity in return for a further loosening of economic sanctions.”  Indeed, while largely liberal American Jews have expressed humanitarian-based criticism of Israel’s handling of the Palestinian situation, their reaction might be just the opposite to a potential threat to it posed by the Iranian deal. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------