Obama Opposes New Pro-Israel Measures

In a rare statement President Obama has announced that he will not follow newly passed measures aimed at boosting the Israeli economy and strengthening ties between the United States and the Jewish state.

Adam Kredo for the freebeacon.com recently reported on this ominous sign that indicates how the U.S will relate to Israel in the remaining days of President Obama's term in office, and potentially beyond that in the event that Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 U.S. Presidential race. Hillary is known to have held similar views.

Obama reportedly stated that although he would sign the new trade resolution, portions of which focus on combating economic boycotts of Israel, he would not enforce certain pro-Israel provisions that order the United States to stop partnering with countries that support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which aims to isolate Israel.

The president's rejection of these provisions comes two weeks after the White House issued a separate statement expressing support for every provision of the trade bill except for those focusing on strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Obama claimed in the statement that his administration does not back the BDS movement. However, he will not uphold parts of the new trade legislation that seek to combat the BDS-backed labeling of Jewish goods, which the Israeli government has described as anti-Semitic.

"Moreover, consistent with longstanding constitutional practice, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions in the Act ... in a manner that does not interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy," Obama said, making clear he will not enforce any part of the law that he views as legitimizing Israeli settlements.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), who authored the pro-Israel language along with Rep. Juan Vargas (D., Calif.), criticized the administration for not upholding the will of Congress and the American people.

"This law--including the anti-BDS provisions I was proud to author--passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate," Roskam said in a statement. "Incredibly, President Obama has already announced his intention to prioritize his misguided notions of legacy over the law of the land...The president has signed this bill into law--it is now his responsibility to fully and faithfully execute it in its entirety."

The bill comes as more than 20 state governments pursue efforts to combat the BDS movement and divest from anyone who supports it.

In a separate report on the same topic, Kredo points out that some of the key resistance has come from the president's own corner of the ring - the Democratic Party, with leading democrats taking aim at the Obama administration for its opposition to the newly passed legislation.

Democratic protestors included Sens. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), Ben Cardin (D., Md.), Michael Bennet (D., Colo.), and Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.). In a joint statement they accused the Obama administration of lying about the pro-Israel bill and pushing a false narrative in efforts to oppose it.

"This simply is not the case...These provisions are not about Israeli settlements. Rather, consistent with U.S. policy, they are about discouraging politically-motivated commercial actions aimed at delegitimizing Israel and pressuring Israel into unilateral concessions outside the bounds of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations...We urge the Administration to implement these provisions as enacted and intended," the senators said.

Indications are that this action by President Obama is by no means isolated, and is, in fact, representative of a consistent and multi-faceted anti-Israeli stance over time.

Pete Hoekstra for the Tribune News Service recently described how President Obama's reckless foreign policy has put Israel in dire jeopardy.

He argued that this has been achieved by undermining Israel's security through heightening threats to its existence. The perceived alienation of Israel by the U.S. has in turn emboldened Israel's enemies.

Hoekstra points to the U.S-partnered nuclear agreement with Iran and other countries, which has re-energized and motivated regional Islamist organizations committed to Israel's destruction. Obama's repeated snubs and slights against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have only added fuel to the anti-Israeli fire.

Some of the consequences have included the following highlights:

" Radical Islamists dedicated to the annihilation of Israel now have significantly more safe havens to freely traffic in ideology, fighters, and weapons that find their way to Israel's borders.

" The terrorist hegemon and Iranian proxy Hezbollah, operating just north of Israel, in Lebanon, has trained 150,000 missiles on the Jewish state. Iran funds Hezbollah to the tune of $800 million to $1 billion annually.

" Iran's ally, the Palestinian Authority, encourages the unyielding knife attacks against Israelis by Palestinians. 

" Hamas, which also receives significant support from Iran, continues building tunnels into Israel for smuggling fighters and weapons.

Rather than punish Iran for supporting the forces dedicated to Israel's destruction, the White House gave it everything it was seeking in a nuclear agreement that neither Congress nor the Iranian parliament ever ratified.

Iran responded, in direct violation of U.N. resolutions, by test firing intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads to Israel. 

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has increased spying on Israel, including using the National Security Agency to monitor Netanyahu's private discussions.

Hoekstra concluded: "U.S. foreign policy has jeopardized Israel's national, political and economic security more than at any other time in its history. The next administration will need to repair the immeasurable damage after seven years of disdain and recklessness. A new beginning anchored in unyielding support can rebuild the relationship so that it becomes stronger than ever".

Michael Lumish in a recent article for jewishpress.com quoted an Israel National News excerpt: 

"Speaking Sunday to CNN, Clinton vowed to support Israel but also said she would insist on the "two-state solution", that is the formation of a Palestinian state, in order to bring an end to the conflict".

Lumish argues that Hillary Clinton will likely continue the counter-productive anti-Jewish / anti-Israel Oslo-policies of Barack Obama and who, as Obama's Secretary of State, threatened and browbeat the Jews of Israel on behalf of their Palestinian-Arab enemies. They did so, and do so, while claiming to be "friends" of the Jewish people and the Jewish State of Israel.

Lumish continued to state that "Those of us who care about the well-being of Israel, and the well-being of the Jewish people, understand that Barack Obama has been the least friendly president of the United States toward Israel, even surpassing the record of Jimmy Carter, both presidential and post-presidential".

It should also be remembered that it was Hillary Clinton who flew to Cairo to ensure a smooth transition into power of the Muslim Brotherhood, even as that organization - the parent of both Hamas and Qaeda - called for the conquest of Jerusalem.

It was also Hillary Clinton, at the behest of the Obama administration, who flew to Jerusalem at the start of the Operation Protective Edge to protect Palestinian-Arabs from the foreseeable consequences of their attempts to kill Jews, via rocket-fire, from the Gaza Strip.

On the much- touted 'two-state solution' Lumish opines that it should be painfully obvious by now that the aspirations of the Palestinian-Arabs are not for two states living side-by-side in peace next to one another. 

He concludes: "Hillary is either deluded or simply does not care... in much the same way that Obama is deluded or simply does not care.

The only question that I have, in the fairly likely event of a Hillary presidency, is will she be more, or less, hostile toward Israel than Barack Obama? I do not know the answer to that question, but given her advisers I would I would not put much faith in a Hillary presidency".