Monday, May 20, 2013
By Barak Ravid | May.19, 2013 | 3:22 PM
A Friday report in the Times of London, according to which Israel prefers the regime of Bashar Assad than see a takeover of the country by rebel Islamist militants, is untrue, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a meeting of Likud ministers on Sunday.
"The statements attributed to an Israeli intelligence officer do not represent the Israeli government's position," Netanyahu said, according to a source present at the meeting.
The prime minister stressed that Israel is not intervening in the Syrian civil war and is not taking a position concerning who should rule the country.
"I don't think there is anyone in Israel eager to take action" in Syria, Tzipi Livni, a member of Netanyahu's security cabinet and a former foreign minister told Army Radio on Sunday, hinting at concerns that any strike could provoke a wider conflict.
Livni also said that Israeli politicians ought to avoid taking sides. "Israel isn't popular in Syria. Therefore any such statement could only be used as ammunition by one of the sides to try and divert the debate or the violence toward Israel and that's the last thing we need," she said.
The Israeli official told the Times: "Better the devil we know than the demons we can only imagine if Syria falls into chaos, and the extremists from across the Arab world gain a foothold there."
According to the Times, the senior intelligence officer in the north of Israel said a weakened but stable Syria under Assad is not only better for Israel but for the region as a whole.
Another defense official was quoted saying it is more likely than initially estimated that Assad will remain in power.
“We originally underestimated Assad’s staying power and overestimated the rebels’ fighting power,” the source said.
The report in the Times comes a day after the United States said the Russian missile shipment to Syria will embolden Assad and prolong the conflict.
Friday, May 10, 2013
By MAGGIE MICHAEL | Associated Press – Fri, May 10, 2013
CAIRO (AP) — Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood staged an anti-Israel rally in Cairo on Friday, the first such protest by the main backers of President Mohammed Morsi since they rose to prominence in the wake of the country's 2011 uprising.
Emerging from weekly services at Al-Azhar mosque — the centuries-old seat of Sunni Muslim learning — demonstrators chanted "the people want the destruction of Israel" in protest of recent Israeli airstrikes in Syria and the detention of a Palestinian Muslim cleric.
At one point, leading Brotherhood member Mohammed el-Beltagy took the microphone and shouted: "we will repeat it over and over, Israel is our enemy." Others echoed the call, and one organizer whipped up the crowd in a chant urging the army to launch a war against Israel to "liberate Palestine ... from the sons of monkeys and pigs."
Since the revolt that deposed longtime autocrat Hosni Mubarak, the Brotherhood — known for its anti-Israeli and anti-Western rhetoric — has largely avoided showing enmity to the West or its former foe on its eastern border.
Morsi himself has repeatedly stressed commitment to Egypt's peace treaty with Israel, and won U.S. praise by brokering a cease-fire between Palestinian Hamas militants and the Jewish state just months after he assumed his post.
But both the Islamist president and his group have had a hard time melding their longtime anti-Jewish stance with new responsibilities since coming to power.
Earlier this year, Brotherhood heavyweight Essam el-Erian created a stir after calling on Egyptian Jews who fled the country to return, in what many saw as a sort of outreach to Israel. Shortly after the remarks however, an Egyptian TV program revealed older comments by Morsi, in which he described Jews as "bloodsuckers" and "pigs."
The revelations raised alarm among senior U.S. officials and reminded Washington of the Brotherhood's anti-American and anti-Israeli roots — a stance some fear the group could easily slide back into should it find it useful or necessary.
Morsi later distanced himself from the comments, saying he was quoted out of context and that he respects all religions. Such remarks are not uncommon in Egypt, where anti-Israeli, not anti-Jewish, sentiment is profound across the political spectrum.
The Friday protest centered on Israeli airstrikes in Syria that targeted alleged shipments of advanced Iranian missiles thought to be bound for Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Brotherhood official Yasser Mehres said.
The demonstrators were also protesting the Israeli detention of the mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Hussein, Mehres added in comments in the official newspaper of the Brotherhood's political party, Freedom and Justice. Hussein was held for several hours on Wednesday for questioning over disturbances at a holy site but released without charge.
The rally comes a day after Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an influential Muslim cleric and Brotherhood ally, crossed to the Palestinian Gaza Strip to join a rally held by Hamas. At the rally, al-Qaradawi voiced support for militants who fire rockets at Israel and said the country has no right to exist.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
From Boston to Israel, radicals are attempting to destroy Western culture.
BY YAIR SHAMIR | MAY 1, 2013
George Orwell wrote in his seminal tome, 1984, "The object of terrorism is terrorism ... Now do you begin to understand me?"
Unfortunately, we live in a world where too many still do not understand.
After the recent terrorist attacks in Boston, there was immense incredulity when the ethnic nationality of the perpetrators was made known. The act did not make sense to many, because terror has so often been explained merely as a product of national conflict, or as a logical reaction to "oppression" or "occupation." Even al Qaeda, we are told, is merely reacting to America's role in the Muslim world.
Neither the United States in particular, nor the West in general, has played a significant role in the decades-long war in Chechnya. The usual talking heads were left scratching their heads -- even after more evidence of the bomber's Islamist ideology came to light.
Modern terror connected to an extremist Islamist mindset is simply something that many in the West are unable or unwilling to truly understand. Our opinion-shapers will look into every possible angle of a terrorist's background and history to find some way to explain away, or on occasion sympathize with, the perpetrators' motives.
We ignore terrorists' ideology at our own peril. While their acts are inhuman, these people are human and we must hold them accountable for their actions -- not treat them as a mere tool of retribution for other misdeeds. Ignoring their ideology will mean that we can never fully understand the implications behind these attacks.
We would not accept Christians meting out vengeance against Muslims for massacres and church bombings in Nigeria, or the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt. Why do we accept the argument that perceived Muslim persecution in one part of the world necessitates Islamist violence in another?
In reality, our Islamist enemies' goals are aggressive by nature. Al Qaeda's ideological underpinnings are found in the writings of Egyptian Islamist theorist Sayyid Qutb, which lauded offensive jihad, or a jihad of conquest. There is little that is reactive about this belief system - it is not aimed at defending its rights, but at conquering the world of the disbelievers.
While it may seem unbelievable to most that al Qaeda's attacks on the United States are about toppling the American nation, this is at the core of the terrorist organization's goals. On March 11, 2005, al-Quds al-Arabi published extracts from al Qaeda leader Saif al-Adel's "al Qaeda's Strategy to the Year 2020." Written in the 1990s, this document outlines how the terrorist organization has attempted to undertake a series of steps that will bring down the United States and the West. This impossible goal is an integral aspect of radical terrorist belief system.
The perpetrators of the Boston attacks, while seemingly unconnected to a terror cell or organization, are examples of people imbued with this radical ideology. Where and how they became radicalized is an important question for the FBI or CIA. But there is one thing we already know: Once they became practitioners of Islamist terror, their goal, in the words of a Boston police chief, was simply to kill as many people as possible. This was not about military occupation, borders, or national aspirations.
In the West, we can understand a person who fights with every breath against tyranny and oppression. We were raised on the heroic struggles against Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. However, we cannot understand someone whose goal is to maim and murder innocents in the name of their religion.
So we avoid that conclusion at all costs. It is a concept so foreign that we reject it outright, and seek other answers more acceptable to our Western palate.
In Israel, we have fought against jihadi terrorism long before there was a single Israeli foot in the West Bank, and even before Jewish sovereignty was reestablished in 1948. In the 1920s and 1930s, the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, would whip his followers into a religious frenzy who would then murder, burn, and frequently dismember innocent Jews.
Husseini's modern-day disciples are no less interested in murder for spiritual gain. While most assume that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is about sovereignty, that is not what the Palestinian terrorist groups claim.
Hamas, the most popular party during the last Palestinian elections, seeks the complete obliteration of Israel. As Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said in Gaza last December, "Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land."
Article 7 of the Hamas Charter, promises a world without Jews, where the "Day of Judgment" will only arrive when the last Jews are hunted down and killed. It is genocidal in its intent.
It is this aggressive and offensive jihad, unconnected to any particular conflict or borders, which conjoins Islamist terror groups around the world. It is this murderous and invasive mindset that drove the Tsarnaev brothers to attack innocent civilians in Boston.
If we in the West wish to stand in the way of this malevolent terror, we must first understand its vision, its true nature, and its goals. Only then can it be conquered. Sadly, at present, we are not even on the same battlefield.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
The map of the Middle East displayed in an Obama administration video released days before President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel shows the Jewish state dispossessed of substantial parts of its current territory, including its capital.
The map of Israel, displayed repeatedly during the video, shows the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, northern Israel, and areas surrounding what is currently the West Bank as non-Israeli territory. The Golan Heights is shown as part of Syria; Jerusalem is shown as part of the West Bank; and northern Israel is shown as part of Lebanon.
The itinerary on the White House website also implies that Jerusalem is neither Israel’s capital nor even part of Israel.
The president’s schedule lists two stops in “Tel Aviv, Israel” and one in “Amman, Jordan” but his activities in Israel’s capital city are identified as taking place only in “Jerusalem” — with no country name attached. This keeps with a reluctantly-acknowledged administration policy of denying that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital or even a part of Israel.
Monday, March 4, 2013
By Lara Seligman - 03/04/13 05:00 AM ET
Three times as many voters believe the Obama administration is not supportive enough of Israel as believe it is too supportive, according to a new poll for the Hill.
The proportion of voters who now say the president does not give strong enough backing to Israel is higher than it was in each of three similar surveys conducted for The Hill since May 2011. Correspondingly, fewer voters now find the White House’s policy excessively supportive of Israel.
According to the latest Hill Poll, just 13 percent of respondents say the president’s policy toward Israel is too supportive. A full 39 percent said Obama is not supportive enough, the highest percentage The Hill Poll has seen.
Over the past two years, recent surveys for The Hill show a fluctuating number of voters who believe the president needs to express stronger support of Israel.
In a poll for The Hill conducted in May 2011, 27 percent of voters said Obama was too supportive toward Israel, while 31 percent said he was not supportive enough.
In September 2011, the proportion of voters who said Obama was too supportive of Israel went down, and those insisting he was not supportive enough increased slightly.
March 2012 saw a slight uptick in the number of respondents who said Obama was too supportive of the Jewish state, to 25 percent, while slightly fewer voters, 32 percent, said the president was not supportive enough.
Meanwhile, in the most recent survey for The Hill, a slightly larger percentage of likely voters say Obama is generally anti-Israel than say he is pro-Israel, 30 percent to 28 percent. The percentage of voters who label Obama as pro-Israel is up slightly from a September 2011 survey for The Hill, as is the number of voters who say Obama is anti-Israel.
Overall though, the data hasn’t changed much since 2011. In the September survey, 23 percent dubbed Obama pro-Israel, while 29 percent said the president was anti-Israel. In the most recent survey, 29 percent of likely voters said Obama is neither, which is a somewhat smaller figure than the 38 percent of voters who gave that answer in 2011.
These findings underline the American public’s concern about Obama’s policy on the Jewish state at a time of heightened fears about Iran’s nuclear program. Israel has insisted that Iran must be stopped by any means necessary, including a military strike, from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration has expressed its preference for a diplomatic solution, a posture that pro-Israel critics say is insufficiently muscular.
The White House appears to be refocusing on the U.S.-Israel alliance after spending the last few months on domestic issues. Vice President Biden is scheduled to address the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s upcoming conference Monday, and Obama will make his first visit to Israel as president later this month.
Another question central to the U.S.-Israel alliance is how involved the White House should be in brokering a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. According to the latest Hill Poll, a majority of voters said Obama should be somewhat or very involved in brokering a deal, while just 32 percent of voters overall said he should be not at all or not very involved in the process.
By way of broad comparison, in a May, 2011 survey, just 24 percent said Obama should be more involved in brokering a peace between the two nations, while 50 percent of voters said Obama should not be more involved and a solid 26 percent said they were not sure.
As Obama embarks on a second-term push to secure his place in history, the president is no doubt thinking about his global reputation.
But according to a comparison of two recent surveys for The Hill, fewer voters now believe Obama has improved the United States’ standing in the world.
In May 2011, 47 percent said Obama had improved the country’s standing, while 38 percent said Obama damaged the nation’s reputation. But in the Hill Poll’s most recent survey, just 37 percent said the United States is more respected internationally than it was prior to Obama taking office, while a full 43 percent said the country is less respected in the world.
These findings were based on a nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted on Feb. 28 by Pulse Opinion Research.
Click here to view data from The Hill Poll.
Read more: http://thehill.com/polls/285899-hill-poll-presidents-support-for-israel-found-wanting-by-many-voters#ixzz2Mc1xsWMn
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Thursday, February 28, 2013
(CNSNews.com) – Describing Iran as a country with an “elected” government and a “remarkable history,” Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday reiterated President Obama’s willingness to hold bilateral talks with the regime.
“It’s a matter of public record that he personally communicated to the supreme leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] that he was prepared to engage and to discuss these issues,” Kerry told a news conference with his French counterpart in Paris.
Responding to a reporter’s question about negotiating with a “terrorist” regime, Kerry pointed out that “Iran is a country with a government that was elected and that sits in the United Nations.”
“And it is important for us to deal with nation-states in a way that acts in the best interests of all of us in the world,” he added, drawing a parallel with President Reagan’s willingness to sit down with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and President Nixon’s decision to engage with China.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, speaking through an interpreter, said in reply to the same question, “If we were only to discuss with full democracies, the ministers for foreign affairs would have a lot of free time.”
Kerry also said that Obama “has made it clear that he will entertain the notion of a bilateral discussion” with Iran.
“The president has said publicly on any number of occasions, and it’s a matter of public record that he personally communicated to the supreme leader, that he was prepared to engage and to discuss these issues,” he said.
“So as a matter of record, I restate today, the United States is prepared to engage in a serious bilateral negotiation with respect to this course we’re on, with the belief that Iran, that has a remarkable history, the Iranian people – there are many Iranian Americans today who contribute to our society.
“We would like to move to a better relationship, and it begins by resolving this nuclear issue.”
The personal communication from Obama to Khamenei referred to by Kerry was reportedly a letter sent shortly before Iran’s disputed June 2009 presidential election, a development not disclosed by the administration but first reported by the Washington Times on June 24, 2009.
When then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about the letter during that day’s press briefing he said he would not “confirm or deny anything around this,” but also noted that “the administration has indicated a willingness to talk with the leadership in Iran and have sought to communicate with the Iranian people in a variety of ways.”
Khamenei himself referred indirectly to the letter, saying during a sermon at Tehran University that the U.S. administration was speaking in a supportive way about Iranian street protests – taking place at the time in response to the election dispute – while at the same time “they write letters to say we’re ready to have ties, that we respect the Islamic Republic … which one should we believe?”
As Kerry noted, Iran does have an “elected” government, but the 2009 election that returned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a second term was viewed largely by Western governments, and by many of Iran’s citizens, as a farce.
Less than a month before the election the Guardian Council, an unelected religious-judicial body appointed by the supreme leader, announced that out of 476 men and women who had applied to be candidates, it had approved just four.
Iranians’ unhappiness with the process and an election result widely seen as rigged prompted the biggest anti-government protests seen in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution – and a subsequent bloody crackdown.
Kerry stopped short of calling the regime in Tehran “legitimate,” a term that his newly sworn-in cabinet colleague, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, used more than once in relation to Iran during his confirmation hearing last month, before backtracking under questioning and saying he should have said “recognized.”
Both Kerry and Hagel have a record of favoring engagement over isolation and sanctions when dealing with Iran and other regimes hostile to the U.S.
In Paris on Wednesday, Kerry stated, “The world has made a decision that an Iran with a nuclear weapon poses a threat to global stability, to nonproliferation efforts, to the Gulf, to the region, and that if we are interested in a world with less nuclear weapons, not more, it is critical to try to find a peaceful way – as President Kennedy did in the Cuban missile crisis – to defuse those situations that are dangerous for everybody.”
He described as “useful” talks between Iran and six powers in Kazakhstan on Tuesday and Wednesday, expressing the hope that Iran would carefully consider what he called “the credible confidence-building steps that the P5+1 have put on the table.”
“If Iran engages seriously, and we hope they will, then these could pave the way for negotiations that lead towards a longer-term and comprehensive agreement.”
The offer put forward by the P5+1 – the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany – has not been unveiled publicly, but reportedly includes easing of some sanctions in return for the suspension of some uranium-enrichment.
Monday, February 11, 2013
New footage of a speech by Chuck Hagel in 2008 has surfaced, in which the former Senator mocked the idea of continuing the U.S. policy of confronting Iran and supporting Israel. "When I hear the talk about--well you can’t talk with Iran, you can’t talk with Syria and we’re, we should stay where we are and support Israel, and so on, well you miss the point," he told the laughing audience at an event for his book, America: Our Next Chapter.
Hagel added that the U.S. "shouldn't even be thinking about the options of bombing Iran," even in the event of a nuclear attack on Israel, and suggested Israel would be the first to attack Iran with a nuclear weapon.
Hagel told the Senate on Jan. 31 that he could not provide records or video for more than four of the "hundreds" of speeches he had given over the previous five years because they had not been transcribed or recorded:
We have given the committee every copy of every speech that I have that's out there, every video that I have that's out there. On paid speeches, most every one of those paid speeches--in the contract it says that they are private and not videotaped. That wasn't my decision. That was the contract of the group I spoke to. I believe every paid speech I gave I didn't have a prepared text. I gave it extemporaneously, which is something I've been doing for long before I left the Senate.
However, records and recordings of many of those speeches do exist, suggesting the administration either did not perform the due diligence necessary to comply with the Senate's request, or that Hagel misled the Senate.
In the new footage, which was uploaded to YouTube and is apparently from a question-and-answer session after his formal remarks, Hagel fields a question about whether the U.S. would attack Iran to help defend Israel from an attack by Iran or one of its proxies that threatened Israel's existence. He says that the U.S. should not attack Iran, and that the U.S. should "engage" Iran instead--even in those circumstances:
Q: [I]f Israel is attacked by Iran or an Iranian proxy like Hezbollah in a way that existentially threatens Israel, almost to the extent that Israel was attacked in ’73 and it’s existentially threatened, would you support an American airstrike using U.S. forces, B2s, whatever on Iran?”
A: I’ll answer the question as honestly as I can. That’s a hypothetical question that somehow frames up the simplicity of the hypothetical question. The complications in the Middle East, and I’m certainly not an expert there, I have a chapter on the Middle East, I do know [laughter], I know a little something about the Middle East. I spent a lot of time there. And I spent a lot of time in Israel with the prime minister and others. You, who are well informed on this issue know the complexities starting with--go back to the Bible, go back to ancient times, thousands of years. I mean that, if you really want to start trying to understand the Middle East, Paul, or David Aaron Miller, who you may know, has a new book out on this, The Not So Promised Land, [sic]. And if you want to read something that is very, very enlightening, this guy, he’s getting tremendous reviews on it. He’s Jewish. He worked in the State Department , worked for Baker, worked for Albright, I think he’s worked for four Secretaries of State, different Democrats, Republicans. But it’s a great, great book.
But your question, I mean the complication of what’s going on there, Hamas is already attacking Israel. Iran supports Hamas. Iran supports Hezbollah. What I would much rather see is this administration, or hopefully the next administration, engage Iran, engage Syria. When I hear the talk about--well you can’t talk with Iran, you can’t talk with Syria and we’re, we should stay where we are and support Israel, and so on, well you miss the point.
Our policy has been so successful I believe, hasn’t it [laughter], that the Middle East is far better off today than it's ever been, isn’t it? [Laughter.] I mean all those countries, Lebanon is in great shape, Gaza is in great shape, Israel is in good shape, Iran, Iraq, things have never looked better, because we won’t talk to anybody. We are not going to have peace, stability, security or anything that even hints of it in the Middle East until Iran and Syria and all the players are part of it.
Now that doesn't apologize for, or doesn't close our eyes to what Iran has been doing, what Iran does do. But unless they are engaged in some way, then I don't see this getting any better. And where this could go, where this could eventually go--somebody was asking me the other day about a nuclear exchange in the world, where that would come from? And I said, well, I'll give you a scenario that's very real. If Israel gets backed up enough into a corner, and Israel uses a tactical theater nuclear weapon--you want to talk about seeing some things unravel in the world. The United States shouldn't even be thinking about the options of bombing Iran or anybody else. I mean, we got our hands full right now... [Applause]
Last week, Iranian "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei bluntly rejected the suggestion by Vice President Joe Biden that the U.S. and Iran should meet for direct, bilateral talks on Iran's nuclear program.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
A day after American Jewish columnist Jeffrey Goldberg quoted President Barack Obama as saying that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu does not understand what is in Israel’s best interest, Netanyahu visited the Gaza border on Wednesday and essentially shot back, “Yes I do.”
During the visit to the headquarters of the IDF’s Gaza Division, Netanyahu was shown figures indicating that December was the quietest month in the South – in terms of rocket and terrorist attacks from the Gaza Strip – in the past 12 years, since January 2001.
“I think everyone understands that only Israel’s citizens are those who will be the ones to determine who faithfully represents Israel’s vital interests,” the prime minister said in his first direct response to Obama’s reported criticism.
Netanyahu said over the past four years he had withstood “enormous pressure,” including demands that Israel curb its pressure on Iran, withdraw to the pre- 1967 lines, divide Jerusalem and stop building in the eastern part of the capital.
“We fended off all those pressures, and I will continue to stand firm on Israel’s vital interests for the security of the citizens of Israel,” he declared.
Netanyahu, who was joined on his visit by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF brass, said he was “very impressed” by the advanced technological measures being deployed in the area, “and even more so by our young soldiers operating them here.”
The IDF, Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and other security forces were doing “very important work,” he said. “They are maintaining the quiet that has been kept since Operation Pillar of Defense.”
Netanyahu said that no one had any illusions, and that the quiet could be shattered at any time.
But, he added, the IDF was prepared for any scenario. “We will do everything necessary to defend Israel’s citizens here and everywhere else,” he said.
Barak attributed the calm in the area primarily to “the serious blow sustained by Hamas and the other terrorist organizations” in Gaza during November’s military operation.
Barak said that a secondary factor was “the positive influence of Egypt,” adding, however, that the foremost reason for the cease-fire having held up was the “exceptional work being carried out here by IDF battalions, the observational post system, the division,” and the new Sinai security fence.
The IDF “is prepared here with tools that are more and more advanced,” Barak said, adding that he had been shown “an amazing exhibition of field intelligence abilities.”
At the same time, “at any given moment, it goes back to the old things, to sticking to the objective, to the speedy orientation of commanders, to the responses of soldiers and commanders,” the defense minister said.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
NBC political director Chuck Todd said Monday there is a “soft count” of 10 Senate Democrats who might oppose Chuck Hagel’s nomination to head the Department of Defense.
“I know of a soft count of 10 no votes on the Democratic side,” Todd said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” adding: “We know Republicans look like they’re going to be fairly united in opposition to Hagel, at least at the beginning. Well, if you’ve got 10 [Democratic] ‘no’ votes, then you don’t have the votes. Hagel’s most important meetings aren’t going to be with his Republican colleagues; they’re going to be with Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Bob Menendez, a lot of the Northeast lawmakers who will be nervous when they’ve got donors, Jewish donors upset about comments.”
Obama is expected to nominate Hagel as defense secretary later Monday. Hagel’s votes opposing sanctions against Iran and comments announcing he is unafraid of the “Jewish lobby” have caused pro-Israel groups to oppose Obama’s selection.(PHOTOS: Chuck Hagel's career)
Pressed last month on “Meet the Press,” Schumer pointedly declined to endorse Hagel.
“I’d have to study his record,” he said. “I’m not going to comment until the president makes a nomination.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/todd-10-dems-may-oppose-hagel-85831.html#ixzz2HW60TowL
Saturday, December 22, 2012
WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), who was nominated by US President Barack Obama on Friday serve as his next secretary of state, is very familiar with the Middle East and the current Israeli leadership. Like outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Kerry supports Israel and understands its needs, but is a staunch opposer of the settlement enterprise.
From John Kerry: Supports pro-Israel laws, opposes settlements - Israel News, Ynetnews