David Ignatius, the Zionist Jew columinst who as Moderator did not allow Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to finish his response to Israel’s President Shimon Peres’ rant at the World Economic Forum (2009) in Davos (Switzerland) – in his Opinion-Post in the Washington Post (March 17, 2011), raised the red-alert that ” Obama weighs talking to Taliban, Hezbullah“.
“The White House has focused on it (Hezbullah issue) in recent weeks because of a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Hezbollah that is nearing completion. Officials who have read draft versions of the estimate say it assesses Hezbollah in a broad context, as a political and social force in Lebanon in addition to the militia officially designated by the United States as a foreign terrorist organization,” wrote David Ignatius.
Only three countries, Israel, the US and Canada have designated Hezbullah as the so-called ‘foreign terrorist organization’.
“The political time bomb ticking away in the NIE is the question of whether the United States should seek some kind of direct or indirect engagement with Hezbollah – at least with its political wing. Officials who support this course argue that the organization is like the IRA or the PLO – with nonmilitary components that can be drawn into a dialogue,” David Ignatius added.
The problem in the ‘similarity’ is that both IRA and PLO were never able to inflict defeat on their much superior agressors. However, Hezbullah did inflict defeat on Israel in 2000 and 2006. Furthermore, the political, social and military wings of Hezbullah are all guided by the same person, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah (born 1960).
David Ignatius then cited John Brennan, the Zionist Jew White House counterterrorism adviser, who in May 2010, had described Hezbullah as “a very interesting organization” and said the United States should try to “build up the more moderate elements.”
However, David Ignatius, for some reasons, missed to mention another Zionist Jew, Jeffrey David Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, who in October 2010, delivered Obama’s personal message to both Lebanese President, Suleiman and Prime Minister Sa’ad Hariri. The message proposed that if Hezbullah accept the ‘Israel Projec’ aka STL’s blame for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005 (to save Israeli Mossad), Washington will take-off Hezbullah from its ‘foreign terrorist list’.
“Officials caution that for now, the Hezbollah question is a matter for intelligence analysts, not policymakers. The White House recognizes that it has enough to deal with already without opening a new question that would produce shock waves in Israel, Saudi Arabia and other countries,” wrote David.
Israel, YES – but why Saudi Arabia or other countries? Saudi Arabia and Lebanon doesn’t share common borders and Hezbullah is in peace with its Syrian and Iraqi neighbors.
“The bottom line is that after a decade of American wars in the Middle East, the Obama administration is increasingly looking for ways to talk with adversaries and draw them into a process of dialogue. The world is changing, and perhaps so should U.S. policy,” wrote David.
True, but I bet David doesn’t believe his beloved Israel to be part of the Middle East ‘policy changes’ though it has done more damages to American interests in the region than any Arab country.
Obama: ‘Can I speak to Nasrallah, please!’ | Rehmat's World
“The White House has focused on it (Hezbullah issue) in recent weeks because of a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Hezbollah that is nearing completion. Officials who have read draft versions of the estimate say it assesses Hezbollah in a broad context, as a political and social force in Lebanon in addition to the militia officially designated by the United States as a foreign terrorist organization,” wrote David Ignatius.
Only three countries, Israel, the US and Canada have designated Hezbullah as the so-called ‘foreign terrorist organization’.
“The political time bomb ticking away in the NIE is the question of whether the United States should seek some kind of direct or indirect engagement with Hezbollah – at least with its political wing. Officials who support this course argue that the organization is like the IRA or the PLO – with nonmilitary components that can be drawn into a dialogue,” David Ignatius added.
The problem in the ‘similarity’ is that both IRA and PLO were never able to inflict defeat on their much superior agressors. However, Hezbullah did inflict defeat on Israel in 2000 and 2006. Furthermore, the political, social and military wings of Hezbullah are all guided by the same person, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah (born 1960).
David Ignatius then cited John Brennan, the Zionist Jew White House counterterrorism adviser, who in May 2010, had described Hezbullah as “a very interesting organization” and said the United States should try to “build up the more moderate elements.”
However, David Ignatius, for some reasons, missed to mention another Zionist Jew, Jeffrey David Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, who in October 2010, delivered Obama’s personal message to both Lebanese President, Suleiman and Prime Minister Sa’ad Hariri. The message proposed that if Hezbullah accept the ‘Israel Projec’ aka STL’s blame for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005 (to save Israeli Mossad), Washington will take-off Hezbullah from its ‘foreign terrorist list’.
“Officials caution that for now, the Hezbollah question is a matter for intelligence analysts, not policymakers. The White House recognizes that it has enough to deal with already without opening a new question that would produce shock waves in Israel, Saudi Arabia and other countries,” wrote David.
Israel, YES – but why Saudi Arabia or other countries? Saudi Arabia and Lebanon doesn’t share common borders and Hezbullah is in peace with its Syrian and Iraqi neighbors.
“The bottom line is that after a decade of American wars in the Middle East, the Obama administration is increasingly looking for ways to talk with adversaries and draw them into a process of dialogue. The world is changing, and perhaps so should U.S. policy,” wrote David.
True, but I bet David doesn’t believe his beloved Israel to be part of the Middle East ‘policy changes’ though it has done more damages to American interests in the region than any Arab country.
Obama: ‘Can I speak to Nasrallah, please!’ | Rehmat's World