Oh my: British PM Theresa May in 'unprecedented' attack on US over Kerry speech
In what's being called an 'unprecedented' attack, British Prime Minister Theresa May on Thursday issued a blistering rebuke of US Secretary of State John Kerry's ranting attack on Israel on Wednesday.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said it was inappropriate of Mr Kerry, America's top diplomat, to attack the make-up of the democratically-elected Israeli government – a key ally of both the US and Britain.
Downing Street also rebuked Mr Kerry for focusing on the single issue of Israeli settlements and not the whole conflict.
Intervening in the increasingly hostile international dispute today, a spokesman for the British Prime Minister said: 'We do not... believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex.
'And we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically-elected government of an ally.'
'The Government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community.'
It echoes Mr Netanyahu's riposte yesterday when he accused the US Secretary of State of being skewed against Israel' and talking 'obsessively' about settlements.
Mind you, Britain was one of the 14 countries that voted in favor of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 last Friday, so why are they now attacking Kerry?
Apparently because they think he went too far.
And Britain is not the only country who went after Kerry today. So did Australia's Julie Bishop.
In a statement released on Thursday, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop
said Australia was not currently a member of the Security Council and
was not eligible to vote on the resolution.
However, she said, "in voting at the UN, the Coalition government has
consistently not supported one-sided resolutions targeting Israel".
She
urged both sides to refrain from steps that damage the prospect for
peace and to "resume direct negotiations for a two-state solution as
soon as possible".
Meanwhile, in the US, it's not just President Elect Donald Trump who has been tweeting up a storm in support of Israel. So have many Representatives and Senators from Kerry's own party (and of course from the Republican party).
“While he may not have intended it, I fear Secretary Kerry, in his speech and action at the U.N., has emboldened extremists on both sides,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, the incoming Senate Democratic leader.
A
bipartisan chorus of lawmakers, upset with President Obama’s decision
last week to allow the passage of a United Nations resolution condemning Israel’s construction of settlements in disputed territory, made clear that they were looking past the departing administration.
Senator
Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Foreign
Relations Committee, said he shared Mr. Kerry’s concerns “with the lack
of forward progress on a two-state solution.” But Mr. Cardin also said
he was unhappy that Mr. Obama had not vetoed the United Nations
resolution, instead abstaining from the vote. He pledged to “explore
congressional action that can mitigate the negative implications” of it.
The most ardent supporters of Israel in Congress seemed just as liberated as Mr. Kerry was to let loose.
“Secretary
Kerry’s speech today was at best a pointless tirade in the waning days
of an outgoing administration,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of
Arizona. “At worst, it was another dangerous outburst that will further
Israel’s diplomatic isolation and embolden its enemies.”
Representative
Eliot L. Engel of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, called Mr. Kerry’s speech “gratuitous” and “wrong.”
“There doesn’t seem any purpose to this other than to embarrass Israel,”
Mr. Engel said. “It just pained me to watch it.”
Democratic
members of Congress who are closer to Mr. Kerry, a former senator, and
the Obama administration were more measured. Many had been angered by
Mr. Netanyahu’s decision last year to accept an invitation from the
Republican-led House to deliver a speech in the Capitol, where he
confronted the president over the Iran nuclear accord.
Yet
even these Democrats — eyeing the arrival of a Republican
administration-in-waiting that has vowed strong support for Israel —
left little doubt that they were parting ways with Mr. Obama on the
substance of the United Nations resolution.
Senator
Bill Nelson of Florida, who is facing re-election in 2018, said he knew
why Mr. Kerry was frustrated over the settlements, which he called an
“impediment toward a negotiated two-state solution.” But he was quick to
note that he was among the 88 senators who signed a letter months ago
opposing the sort of United Nations resolution on Israel that the
Security Council approved last week.
Hopefully the reactions in Congress will keep the Obama administration from saddling Israel with their 'peace plan.' Perhaps this picture says it best.
The Corker-Cardin process was supposed to save President Hussein Obama from having to bring the Iran nuclear sellout for approval by the United States Senate, where it had no chance of winning. But according to Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Obama may have outsmarted himself. The Iranian sellout violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which was ratified and approved by the Senate), and is therefore effectively an amendment to that treaty that requires two thirds approval from the Senate.
The issue is not whether the executive can without a treaty enter into agreements with foreign governments. Of course it can.
That happens often from negotiating minor details of landing rights to
major agreements. But these executive agreements are done consistent
with treaty obligations, or certainly not in conflict with them. The
Iran Deal conflicts with the NPT.
Treaties are the law of the land
and have the status of federal statutes. They do not trump either the
Constitution or subsequently enacted statutes. As a statute, however, a
treaty would supersede a regulation, an executive order, or an
executive-signed agreement. If an executive agency or an independent
agency has the latitude to issue orders or sign agreements that conflict
with treaty obligations, then treaties ratified by the United States
have little if any enforceability.
In the United States, the administration or an independent agency
cannot simply write an order that conflicts directly with a statute. The
rule of law flows insists on no less. Why should a treaty, the NPT have
lesser status?
The Iran Deal will not have the status of even a statute. As
currently planned, it will not be subject to the constitutionally
mandated process for Senate consent for a treaty. Nor will the Iran Deal
become a statute even under the Corker-Cardin process
of Congressional review. Moreover, as seems likely, the Iran Deal will
result in a joint resolution that will have the support of fewer than
half of the members of either house of Congress, hardly the foundation
for a statute.
Congress had not seen the Iran Deal before the Corker-Cardin process
was enacted and had no reason to believe that it would violate the NPT.
On April 27 just before the Corker-Cardin bill was approved, Secretary
Kerry remarked
at the 2015 NPT meeting that “nonproliferation must be non-negotiable.
There is no room under the NPT for a country to negotiate its way into
becoming a nuclear-armed state … “[A]ny deal with Iran will rely not on
promises, non on words, but on proof…verification is at the heart of the
NPT.”
The Corker-Cardin bill established a process to review an executive order, not review a treaty amendment. No one has put
forth an argument that Congress can bind itself in advance to a process
to create or amend a treaty by a process different from that stated in
the constitution.
Senate demands to see Parchin and PMD ('possible military dimensions') deals - UPDATED
The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Bob Corker (R-Tn) and Ben Cardin (D-Md) - have demanded from Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz - who was deeply involved in the P5+1 negotiations - that the White House demanding to see the secret agreements whose existence was disclosed on Tuesday by the IAEA to Congressman Bob Pompeo (R-Ks) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The Cotton-Pompeo trip is already affecting the debate over the
Iran deal on Capitol Hill. According to The Hill, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker and ranking member Ben Cardin
met with Department of Energy secretary Ernest Moniz yesterday to demand
copies of the side agreements discovered by Cotton and Pompeo. The two
senators also sent a joint letter to President Obama asking for copies
of these documents.
Fred Fleitz (at that first link) also explains the significance of what's being hidden.
Former Department of Energy official William Tobey explained in a
July 15 Wall Street Journal op-ed why it is crucial that Iran resolve
the PMD issue. According to Tobey, “for inspections to be meaningful,
Iran would have to completely and correctly declare all its relevant
nuclear activities and procurement, past and present.”
According to the Cotton/Pompeo press release, there will be a secret,
opaque procedure to verify Iran’s compliance with these side agreements.
The press release says:
According to the IAEA, the Iran agreement negotiators, including the
Obama administration, agreed that the IAEA and Iran would forge
separate arrangements to govern the inspection of the Parchin military
complex — one of the most secretive military facilities in Iran — and
how Iran would satisfy the IAEA’s outstanding questions regarding past
weaponization work. Both arrangements will not be vetted by any
organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even
to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA [Iran nuclear agreement].
This
means that the secret arrangements have not been released for public
scrutiny and have not been submitted to Congress as part of its
legislatively mandated review of the Iran deal.
This means that two crucial measures of Iranian compliance with the
nuclear agreement will not be disclosed to Congress despite the
requirements of the Corker-Cardin bill (the Iran Nuclear Agreement
Review Act), which requires the Obama administration to provide the U.S.
Congress with all documents associated with the agreement, including
all “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements [emphasis added],
implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical, or other
understandings and any related agreements, whether entered into or
implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented
in the future.”
It also means that Congress will have no way of knowing whether Iran
complied with either side agreement.
...
This is especially troublesome for the PMD issue. I wrote in
National Review on June 15 and June 17 that the Obama administration was
trying to find a way to let Iran off the hook for past nuclear
weapons-related work. It seems to have found a way to do this with a
secret procedure shielded from the American public and the U.S.
Congress.
Still waiting for the Democrats to stand up to Obama on this. Ben Cardin? Chuck Schumer? The only one I'm betting on is Bob Menendez - he has nothing to lose.
On Morning Joe on Wednesday morning, State Department Spokesman John Kirby refused to answer questions regarding the existence of side deals that were not shown to Congress.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
