ICYMI: Obama Is Isolating Israel (From Newsmax)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 28, 2011

 

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
Obama Is Isolating Israel
From Newsmax

 

By George Allen

Thursday, October 27, 2011

 

The Obama administration recently warned Israel that it is becoming “increasingly isolated” in the Middle East and must take “risks for peace.” However, it is the very policies of the administration that are undermining Israel’s ability to take such risks and have served to increase Israel’s vulnerability in a hostile region.

Historically, strong American support has enabled Israel to make tough, risky decisions. For example, Israel unilaterally withdrew Israeli Defense Forces and uprooted settlements from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, knowing that it had the unwavering support and commitment of the United States. In fact, unwavering support for Israel has long been a core tenet of U.S. foreign policy, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike.

I am proud of my consistent record of standing with our friend and ally Israel throughout my public service. As governor of Virginia and in the U.S. Senate as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I vigorously promoted and encouraged close cultural, economic, educational and strategic ties between the freedom loving people of our two nations.

I have long believed that Israel and the United States share an unshakable bond, and the United States must stand with Israel in the face of these burgeoning threats.

Unfortunately the Obama administration sees it differently. In less than three years President Obama’s attempts to create a distance between the United States and Israel while accommodating Israel’s enemies have severely undercut our relationship in a very public way, leaving Israel increasingly vulnerable and isolated while emboldening their enemies.

In speech after speech, Obama has distanced the United States from Israel, castigating Israel over housing projects in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, even making a dangerous and unprecedented call to start negotiations based on the pre-1967 borders that made Israel’s security vulnerable in the first place.

Perhaps the Obama administration believed that creating distance with Israel would improve U.S. standing with the Palestinians and that the Palestinians in turn would be more accommodating for peace. In fact, the opposite has occurred. Israel has received more rockets from Iranian-supported Hamas in Gaza, including missiles fired at school buses. And there are concerns about shoulder-fired missiles from Libya getting into Gaza.

  
Read More:  http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/netanyahu-obama-hamas-israel/2011/10/27/id/415958

###

Does Tim Kaine Stand with President Obama or Israel?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

May 20, 2011

Does Tim Kaine Stand with President Obama or Israel?

Richmond, VA – George Allen released the following statement regarding President Obama’s calls for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders:

“President Obama’s call for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations with Israel forfeiting her lands and returning to borders of pre-1967 represents a dangerous shift in U.S. policy concerning Israel.  This proposal would risk the lives of the men, women and children of Israel.  In this unsettled region, Israel’s democracy is a well-spring in the wilderness.   The United States should stand with our ally — not undermine Israel’s ability to negotiate or put its national security at risk.  Virginia and America have a strong, historic friendship with Israel.  Virginians deserve an answer to the question:  does Tim Kaine agree with President Obama undermining the security of our friend and ally, the State of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East?”

###

Prime Minister Netanyahu

In the news conference after the meeting with President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu stood strong for defending Israel’s security by not retreating and receding to their 1967 borders.

Egypt and beyond: Four pillars for free and just society

By George Allen
Richmond Times Dispatch
February 27, 2011

After 30 years of rule and the imposition of economic and social restraints on the people of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak yielded power in the face of determined, continuous rallies of people in favor of greater freedom and the opportunity to lead better lives.

The Egyptian army did not turn against the citizens, which is a beneficial sign of restraint — and the fact that so many Egyptians have served in their military.

As the world awaits the civilian government that fills the void, the United States and our allies should support a peaceful transition to a society in Egypt that addresses both the aspirations of the citizens and the basic individual rights that should be secured for all human beings.

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it became clear to me that there is a set of key, foundational principles common to all successful civilizations.

These ideals, which I call the Four Pillars of a Free and Just Society , are imperative for any form of government to earn the consent of the people and allow them to lead fulfilling lives. These pillars should be the basis of any emerging Egypt — in a constitution and laws.

Click here to continue reading.

Egypt and 4 pillars of a just society

By George Allen
Politico
February 16, 2011

The world has been captivated by Egypt, watching with concern, anticipation and hope as the Egyptian people took their frustrations and aspirations to the streets. After decades of economic and social restraints, the Egyptian people have awakened to rally for their right to freedom and opportunity to lead better lives.

It is paramount that United States and its allies support a peaceful transition to a free and just society, governed by the consent of the people.

Egypt’s new constitution should be built upon the solid foundation of what I call the four pillars of a free and just society. When I served as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I saw that these principles are at the heart of every successful free society.

The first pillar is freedom of religion, guaranteeing freedom of personal beliefs and conscience. No person’s rights or opportunities should be enhanced nor diminished due to their religious persuasion. People should be able to worship as they choose, since a state enforcing or denying religion is tyranny.

The second pillar is freedom of expression for men and women. The people of Egypt must be able to express themselves without fear of retribution from a new or future government. For there to be a stable Egypt, on par with other advanced nations, the new government must respect its citizens’ inalienable rights and never forget that it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

Click here to continue reading.

George Allen on Developments in Egypt

In Egypt, the U.S. and our allies should support a peaceful transition to a free and just society.  We should encourage an Egyptian society that includes freedom of religion and expression for men and women, private ownership of property and the rule of law.  If those principles are the basis of a nation, the people have greater prosperity, live longer, happier and healthier lives and are much more likely to be aligned with American interests.

“A Tale of Two Koreas; The Power of Freedom”

By George Allen
The Daily Caller
June 30, 2010

As we mark the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War, the Korean Peninsula provides the world a living, object lesson. On this peninsula, approximately the size of Minnesota, the Korean people are ethnically identical. But, upon gaining independence after World War II, the Korean people took separate paths to self-government. The North led by Soviet occupying forces, the South by U.S-Allied forces. The armistice in 1953 that ended the Korean War split the war-ravaged Korean people with a totalitarian regime in the North and a society based on freedom of expression, religion and private property rights in the South. Both new countries were considered relatively “poor” though North Korea had much more heavy industry and resources compared to the mountainous, rural southern part.

Today, 60 years later, a satellite photograph of the Korean Peninsula tells a profound story of freedom vs. totalitarianism. The electric power behind the economies is a compelling part of the object lesson. Only 20 percent of North Koreans have access to electricity while nearly 100 percent of South Koreans have access to electricity. Largely without electricity, North Koreans do not have access to the Internet. Yet nearly 100 percent of South Koreans are able to communicate and conduct transactions across the Internet. North Koreans have very little refrigeration for their food, few lights, non-existent air conditioning, no automobiles and practically no computers, radios or television. There is very little electricity to develop a manufacturing base, much less provide basics of living for people.

After over fifty years of two systems, the result is a stark difference in the quality of life between the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). First, the life expectancy in South Korea is longer, 78.72 years in comparison to North Koreans’ 61.23 years. The most telling human statistic is that at just four years of age, the toll on living children is pronounced: South Korean preschool children are approximately 3 inches taller than their North Korean peers. Women of childbearing age in North Korea are up to 19 pounds lighter than South Korean women and have a significantly higher maternal mortality rate. The Infant Mortality Rate is 12 times higher in North Korea.

Communist Party doctrine continues to control every aspect of life in North Korea. Although North Korea instituted Kim Il-Sung’s ‘juche’ or doctrine of self-reliance as the state ideology, the country remains heavily dependent upon government subsidies for housing, food and other needs. Land use is heavily regulated by the state, with little or no private property rights. North Korea ranks last, at 179, in the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal’s world rankings for economic freedom.

Starting a small business in North Korea is virtually impossible as central planning rules the economy. By comparison, an entrepreneur in South Korea could start a business within an average of 17 days.

Click here to continue reading.