Netanyahu - The Liar.

 

The Sarkozy-Obama exchange reflects the world's growing frustration with Netanyahu

French President Sarkozy overheard telling President Obama that Prime Minister Netanyahu 'a liar' when microphone accidentally left on after G20 summit press conference.

By Barak Ravid

If a remark by French President Nicolas Sarkozy publicized Tuesday is any indication, not much is left of what was once a strong friendship between himself and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, dating back to when both men were finance ministers.
The French president, unaware last Thursday that a mic in the meeting room at the G20 summit at Cannes was on, was heard calling Netanyahu "a liar" in what he thought was a private exchange with U.S. President Barack Obama. "I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, who was also unaware that the mike had been turned on and was being monitored by reporters via the headsets used for simultaneous translations.
Obama didn't exactly defend Netanyahu, either.
"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to wire service reports.
Obama also complained to Sarkozy about France's vote in favor of Palestinian membership in UNESCO, and asked him to tell the Palestinians to stop their unilateral moves at the United Nations.
"We'll have to impose economic sanctions on the Palestinians," Obama said.
Several journalists, including a few from large media organizations, heard the exchange but did not initially report it, agreeing among themselves that to do so would be a violation of journalistic ethics. The remarks appeared Tuesday on a relatively obscure French website that deals with media criticism.
A Reuters reporter, however, confirmed that he had heard the exchange, and neither the White House nor Elysee Palace issued any denials.
It is not the only time recently that Sarkozy has expressed his frustration with Netanyahu.
During a French cabinet meeting a few weeks ago, he told his ministers, "Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] is a statesman, but Netanyahu never misses an opportunity to disappoint us," according to a report in Le Canard Enchaine. "Just now he approved the construction of 1,100 apartments in the Arab section of Jerusalem."
And while Obama has been restraining himself so as not to alienate voters before the 2012 presidential election, his disdain for Netanyahu is well-known.
Former U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates reportedly called Netanyahu "ungrateful" in a meeting with Obama before the former left his post this summer, adding that the prime minister was "endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel's growing isolation."
The Prime Minister's Office refused to comment on Tuesday. At the Foreign Ministry, whose head, Avigdor Lieberman, has gotten his own share of insults from Sarkozy, there were some amused responses.
"It's a good thing the microphones didn't catch what Merkel told Obama about Sarkozy," said one senior official, who refused to be named.
Vice Premier Silvan Shalom played down the episode: "Everyone talks about everyone. Sometimes even good friends say things about each other, certainly in such competitive professions," Shalom told Army Radio. "So you have to consider the main things. Is Obama a friend of Israel's? Is Sarkozy a friend of Israel's? Is their policy a consistent policy of support for Israel? The answer to all of these questions is affirmative and, as far as I'm concerned, that is what's important."
The exchange between Sarkozy and Obama is not exceptional; it represents the increasing contempt and frustration many world leaders feel for Netanyahu and the wavering position of the Israeli government in the international arena. Though Netanyahu promised nearly three years ago that he would deliver "surprises" with regard to the peace process and implement historic measures, many world leaders have stopped believing him.
"I don't believe a word he says," German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly said recently, in a closed conversation.
Earlier this year, Merkel confronted Netanyahu directly, saying, "You've disappointed us. You haven't taken a single step to advance peace."
Other world leaders, such as British Prime Minister David Cameron, have simply taken to avoiding Netanyahu.
Meanwhile, two of Netanyahu's only friends of late, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou have both vowed to resign in the face of their respective countries' economic collapse.Next week Netanyahu will be visiting the Hague, one of the few major cities in which the Israeli prime minister is still received cordially.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/the-sarkozy-obama-exchange-reflects-the-world-s-growing-frustration-with-netanyahu-1.394448

Anders Breivik - Genius Knight Templar.

Al Salamu 'Alaykum.

By Ali Khan Mahmudabad, The Milli Gazette

Published Online: Aug 02, 2011

Edward Bernays could not have scripted the immediate aftermath of the Oslo bomb blasts with more precision. A nephew of the famous psychoanalyst, Sigmund Freud, Bernays is often referred to as the ‘father of public relations.’ Influenced by his uncle’s theories as well as the work of Gustave LeBon and Wilfred Trotter, Bernay was an advocate of social manipulation by appealing to the unconscious. He believed in the mass promulgation of information in order to intelligently affect public opinion and therefore control it. Over the last few decades, the threat of ‘Islamic’ terrorism has been made into an ever-looming specter so that the knee-jerk reaction after a bombing or any violent attack is an assumption that it was conducted by ‘violent Islamist jihadis.’ This is precisely what happened after the Oslo blasts and the youth camp killings.

The Norwegian press began the frenzy by suggesting that a group founded by an Iraqi Kurdish cleric, Mullah Krekar, called the Ansar ul-Islam was behind the attack and newspapers all over the world used their ‘experts’ to try and analyse who the perpetrators could be. The Guardian, in an article covering the blast on Friday the 22nd, inserted a paragraph towards the end of the article, mentioning the arrest of 3 Muslims from Iraq, Uzbekistan and China who were charged with trying to make peroxide bombs. At the end of the article the reporter wrote that Norway’s security would have to become stricter because it was a Swedish Muslim, Taimur Abdul Wahab who bombed Stockholm.

The Independent dispatched its “religious affairs correspondent” who promptly wrote an article entitled ‘Analysis: Jihadist Networks have long singled out Norway.’ The whole article explored why radical Islamists might be drawn to attacking Northern European countries and having written two thirds of the piece the reporter, as a caveat or an ‘escape clause’, wrote ‘if jihadis did carry out today’s attacks they have passed a new milestone.’ The article then ended with a terrorism expert pontificating that ‘no one should be surprised if this bombing turns out to be a jihadist attack.’ The New York Times wrote that a group called the Ansar al-Jihad al-Aalami might be responsible for the attack and then revised its position to cite official sources that doubted the existence of such a group.

The few examples I have given above are from Western newspapers that are generally perceived to be ‘liberal’ in their reporting and analysis. As it turned out the killer was a strapping Norwegian man with a shock of blonde hair who wanted to carry out his duty as a Commander of the Knights Templar and was adamant on promoting a crusade against Muslims and Islam. Today, Anders Behring Breivik is being labeled a “lone madman” but this analysis is too facile and too easy to be allowed to take root. Implicit in claiming that he is insane is an argument for continuing to focus on the Muslim world as the root of terrorist activity. The 1500 page document that Breivik has left behind, in which he demonstrates his ideological commitment and shows how connected he was to similar right-wing organisations across Europe, could easily have been written by an al-Qaeda propagandist but whereas the latter is seen as a rational and calculating enemy, Breivik and his ilk are dismissed without any thought. This in essence demonstrates the power of what Edward Bernays advocated.

In recent years Europe has seen the reemergence of ultra-nationalist right-wing parties that share a common hatred of immigration and particularly Muslim migration to Europe amongst other things. A few weeks ago the English Defense League (EDL), which basically has a one point anti-Muslim agenda, held a rally in Cambridge against the construction of a new mosque. This platform drew much admiration from Breivik who also praised groups such as ‘Stop the Islamification of Europe.’ The EDL identified Norway as a potential ‘Islamohell’ because of the ruling Labour Party’s perceived support of pro-Palestinian and pro-Islamic issues. Following the bombings, The Wall Street Journal blamed the Labour Party for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and for demanding that Israel end the Gaza Seige and followed the ‘herd’ in blaming the attacks on Islamist militants. The article would have pleased Breivik who saw the Labour Party as ‘traitors.’

Today, a number of European countries have to deal with the increasingly vocal, and often increasingly violent, presence of nationalist right-wing parties. While it has become fashionable to see a jihadi lurking behind every corner and the term ‘Islamofascism’ is analysed every day in many newspapers, it is important for Europe to take cognizance of the threat that ‘traditional’ fascism poses in their societies. The increasing political popularity of Jean-Marie LePen in France, Jorge Haider in Austria and others in Italy, Germany, Switzerland and other countries have proved this trend. David Cameron also illustrated this tendency in a speech earlier this year where is talked about ‘the failure of multiculturalism’ and the need to “acknowledge that this threat [terrorism] comes overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse and warped interpretation of Islam...” Angela Merkel, in a speech to a Christian Democrat Party conclave said that care must be taken to ensure that mosque cupolas are not demonstratively higher than church towers.

Of course this does not mean that the threat from certain Muslim groups has diminished but it is high time that Europe begins to put its own house in order before preaching to others. To dismiss Breivik as an anomalous ‘evil madman’- in the words of the Russian spokesperson- whose actions are not symptomatic of a wider malaise is tantamount to ignoring a clear warning of what is to come. Incidentally, Breivik expressed admiration for Putin’s style of leadership and also praised a number of other conservative leaders from around the world. Notably the press is still refusing to call Breivik a terrorist, a term apparently patented for Muslims, and descriptions are limited to attacker, assailant and vigilante.  The resurgence of a rabid nationalist right wing in so many countries should be the real cause for consternation: after all it was the European right that perpetrated some of the most horrific crimes of the 19th and 20th centuries.

The author, a research scholar at Cambridge University, may be contacted at bilehra14[@]gmail.com

See also: Colbert Report: Norwegian Muslish Gunman's Islam-Esque Atrocity

 

'Alaykum Salam.