Israel Matzav

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.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Ben Cardin, Bill Nelson, Charles Schumer, Eliot Engel, John Kerry, John McCain, Julie Bishop, Theresa May, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:29 AM 1 comments

After being branded a traitor by the White House, why isn't Schumer coming out fighting?

All sarcasm aside, this could be a great moment in Chuck Schumer's history. The real question is, why isn't he pushing to make it one.

Branded a traitor by the Hussein Obama White House (along with other Jewish legislators who have come out against the Iran sellout), Schumer has remained curiously silent since announcing his principled opposition to the Iran nuclear sellout. He wasn't on any Sunday news shows (hard to believe he wasn't invited), and there have been no reports of him trying to influence other Senators to oppose the deal. Why? This is from the second link, by Seth Lipsky in Haaretz.

So why, in the light of all the burning bridges, hasn’t Schumer launched a full campaign to block this deal? Why hasn’t he hit the talk shows and done what the Senate leadership is supposed to do to, well, lead the Senate? That would normally mean twisting arms, bargaining, and trying to get wayward or undecided senators to vote their way. Or even attempting to change the minds of those who have come out on the other side.

The way this is being retailed in New York is that the Senator is prepared to talk to anybody who asks. He himself has characterized it as a vote of “conscience” (unlike the other votes he casts), a situation in which one can’t twist arms in the normal political way. There are those I’ve heard from who find that line unconvincing, to say the least. After all, if it were a matter of conscience and even a life-and-death situation for America and Israel, wouldn’t one feel impelled to spare nothing?

...

Experience suggests, at least to me, that the big danger is a last-minute dodge, like the waiver Congress gave the president to avoid moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv. Schumer was in the thick of that default. Could there be a waiver or some maneuver now to defuse the constitutional crisis between the Senate and the president over Iran? Maybe there’s a good reason for Mr. Schumer’s silence — he’s on vacation, he’s under the weather, he’s plotting. But if he’s really committed on this, the logic would be to re-engage. This just isn’t a time to stand on ceremony.

Or perhaps, Schumer still wants to lead his party in the Senate and has silently cut a deal with the White House that he will not lead opposition to this sellout, and in return the White House will call off its minions when the time comes for the vote on a Minority Leader?

Of course, that vote won't be taken until Obama's last two weeks in office, so Schumer has no way to enforce a deal like that....

And about those other Jewish Democrats who stand accused of treason by the White House, this is from the first link - Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon.

These allegations of dual loyalty to Israel, which many have identified as anti-Semitic, began almost immediately with the White House, which accused its critics of worrying more about Israel’s interests than the United States’.

The use of this rhetoric by the Obama administration and its allies is attracting concern among Jewish leaders, who worry the White House will pin the potential failure of the Iran deal on the American Jewish community.

In a July 21 interview, Obama said that shady “lobbyists” and people with “money” were working to kill the deal.

...

The rhetoric also has extended to what many view as implicit threats against Israel.

Obama reportedly told a group of Jewish leaders last week that rejection of the Iran deal will result in rockets falling on Tel Aviv.

Secretary of State John Kerry also said that Israel will be blamed if Congress rejects the deal.

Organizations close to the White House quickly latched onto this rhetoric and have taken aim at Democratic Jewish lawmakers who have come out against the deal.

NIAC, which has been accused of lobbying on behalf of Tehran and the regime, explicitly accused Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) of being more loyal to Israel than America.

Reza Marashi, a NIAC flack, took to Twitter to accuse Schumer of “putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s interests.”

In addition to Schumer, Democratic Jewish Reps. Brad Sherman (Calif.) and Eliot Engel (N.Y.) also have come out against the deal.

J Street, an anti-Israel group that has described itself as the Obama administration’s “blocking back,” also questioned the motives of those Jewish lawmakers opposing the accord.

“Opposing the #IranDeal against recs of top scientists, Israeli & US security experts, 100+ ex-diplomats can’t plausibly be a policy decision,” J Street official Dylan Williams pontificated on Twitter over the weekend.

The Daily Kos published a cartoon over the weekend that accused Schumer of being a “traitor” who is more loyal to Israel than the U.S.

On Sunday, the White House aligned dark money group CREDO Action, the political arm of CREDO Mobile, teamed with the Democrats.com to accuse Schumer of being a traitorous “warmonger” who is betraying his country.

In mid-July, when the deal was first announced, White House ally MoveOn blasted an email to its members headlined “47 traitors.”

In the note, MoveOn wrote: “We have just 60 days to stop the so-called ‘47 traitors’ and hawkish Democrats from killing this deal.”

Jewish leaders said the rhetoric from the Obama administration and its allies has crossed a line into anti-Semitic territory.

 And if the vote looks like it's going to be close, it's only going to get worse....

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Brad Sherman, Charles Schumer, dual loyalty, Eliot Engel, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:03 PM 3 comments

The 'Spirit of Geneva'

For months now, President Obama has been appealing to Congress not to impose additional sanctions on Iran because it would spoil the 'Spirit of Geneva.' Well, just what is the 'Spirit of Geneva'? This will give you some idea.

On Wednesday morning, while US Secretary of State John Kerry was meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, Iranian President Rohani announced that Iran will build two more nuclear power plants. For 'peaceful' purposes, of course.

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said the country would build two more nuclear plants in the southern city of Bushehr in line with the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

The president made the remarks on Tuesday while visiting the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, Press TV reported.

"The Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is different from the power plants of other countries since this power plant is the symbol of a nation's resistance," he said.

"The construction of this power plant and making it operational showed the world that should a nation have a will to attain a goal, it would take steps in that direction, stand up for its rights and attain its goal."

The Iranian chief executive said the plant is an example that shows Iran "is only after peaceful use of nuclear energy and electricity production.

A bit later in the day, while the meetings in Geneva were still going on, Iran announced that it would place a Washington Post reporter whom it has been holding for months on trial for undisclosed crimes.

A Washington Post journalist detained in Iran for months has been indicted and will stand trial, Iran's state news agency reported Wednesday, without elaborating on what charges he faced.

The report by the official IRNA news agency came the same day as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif before talks with world powers resume over the Islamic Republic's contested nuclear program.

It wasn't immediately clear if the two events were connected, though Zarif earlier said he hoped the case against reporter Jason Rezaian could be "resolved."

"We will have to wait for the judiciary to move forward, but we will try to provide all the humanitarian assistance that we could," Zarif told journalists in Geneva. "We hope that this issue could be resolved but unfortunately there are judicial issues involved which the judiciary has to deal with."

IRNA quoted Tehran prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi saying Rezaian, the newspaper's bureau chief in Tehran since 2012, had been indicted. He was previously charged last month, but the bill of indictment clears the way for his trial.

Rezaian, an Iranian-American who holds dual citizenship, has been held since July 22. The IRNA report did not disclose what charges he faces. However, the report says he will stand trial in Iran's Revolutionary Court, which mostly hears cases involving security offenses.

Given all this 'spirit,' it's not too surprising that Congress is about to defy the Obama administration and take up sanctions.

The US House of Representatives has begun working on its own Iran sanctions bill rather than simply agreeing to pass whatever the Senate comes up with, Al-Monitor has learned. 

...

"We feel very strongly that the House needs to play an important role, not just rubber-stamp whatever the Senate decides to do," the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs panel, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., told Al-Monitor. "So we're going to put our heads together [with Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif.] and see what's the best way to proceed."

The two lawmakers are expected to hunker down next week to decide on a strategy for moving forward, Engel said. Separately, Royce told Al-Monitor that he was planning to sit down Jan. 15 with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., for an update on the Senate strategy.

...

The Senate bill will largely replicate 2013 legislation from Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., that would trigger new sanctions on Iran's energy sector if the country doesn't agree to a nuclear deal that's acceptable to Congress. The two senators are said to be tweaking their legislation, which never came up for a vote while Democrats controlled the Senate, to try to sign up a veto-proof majority of 67 senators before unveiling it.

Read the whole thing. If there ever was a 'Spirit of Geneva,' it's gone.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Eliot Engel, Hassan Rohani, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Mark Kirk, Mohammad Javad Zarif, P 5+1, Robert Menendez, United States Congress

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:37 PM 0 comments

Sequester? What sequester?

The US House of Representatives has voted to restore aid to Israel to its pre-sequester level of $3.1 billion. At the same time, aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' was conditioned on its not running to the United Nations unilaterally for recognition. Additionally, a portion of the aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' was conditioned upon the 'Authority's developing programs against incitement.

The amount is in line with a 2007 10-year memorandum of understanding that guaranteed Israel an average of $3 billion a year in assistance.

Aid to the Palestinian Authority was conditioned on its not running to the United Nations for recognition.

Also in the bill is $268.7 million in funding for U.S.-Israel cooperative anti-missile programs. This is not considered assistance because Israel contributes to the programs. The annual US assistance, too, has strings attached: it is conditional on the money being used for purchasing weapons from the US.

The $1.1 trillion bill passed Wednesday is the result of a deal brokered last month between Democrats and Republicans, who have been fighting over the spending bill for months. It restores about half the cuts made in the “sequestration,” the across-the-board 8 percent cuts which by law went into force in March, when Congress failed to agree on a budget.

The bill also makes the $400 million the Palestinian Authority (PA) receives in annual assistance dependent on programs against incitement, and cuts off aid to the Palestinian Arabs if the PA takes further steps to secure statehood recognition at international bodies.

JPost adds:

The overwhelming passage of $3.1 billion in Israel security assistance as part of the larger omnibus appropriations bill again demonstrates the bipartisan commitment to ensuring Israel’s security needs are fully met," Eliot Engel (D-NY), ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

A substantial portion of the aid package is earmarked for Arrow, Arrow 2 and David's Sling, Israel's long- and medium-range missile defense systems.

I don't think Obama would dare to oppose a higher level of aid to Israel in a (Congressional) election year, but I would bet that he was ask the Democrat-controlled Senate to try to get the conditions to aid to the 'Palestinians' deleted.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Eliot Engel, US aid, US foreign aid

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:31 PM 2 comments

Top House Dem Engel: Hagel has 'endemic hostility' toward Israel

In a Friday interview on C-Span, Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he has a real problem with potential Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's 'endemic hostility to Israel' (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

In an interview Friday taped for C-SPAN's Newsmakers, conducted jointly by The Cable and Politico, Engel said that Hagel's record on Israel and Iran make him a poor choice to lead the military. In particular, Engel said he was irked by Hagel's reference to the "Jewish lobby" in an interview with former official Aaron David Miller. (Miller supports Hagel's nomination.)

"I think that remark is troublesome, it's problematic. It shows at the very best a lack of sensitivity, at the very worst perhaps a prejudice. And I'm concerned about it, I'm concerned about the nomination," Engel said. "If I were doing the appointing, I would not appoint Chuck Hagel."

Engel, who represents the Bronx, Rockland, and Westchester, said he has been hearing a lot of opposition to the potential Hagel nomination from his constituents. He also said that Hagel's activities related to Israel, including his statements on Hamas and Israel's influence in Washington, show a pattern of "hostility."

"It seems there is some kind of an endemic hostility towards Israel and that's troublesome to me and troublesome to a lot of people," Engel said. "In the sensitive post of secretary of defense, those are warning bells. Those are red lights."

Obama should have the privilege of picking his own team, Engel said, but he predicted that Obama will pass over Hagel to avoid the controversy.

"I think [the president] knows that the Hagel nomination potentially is a problem," he said.

Still waiting for similar sentiments from Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY)  and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), both of whom do have a vote.

Labels: anti-Israel lobby, Barack Hussein Obama, Chuck Hagel, Eliot Engel

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:25 AM 0 comments

Bipartisan House delegation visiting Israel

A bipartisan House delegation is visiting Israel this week.

The delegation, including Reps. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.), John Barrow (D-Ga.), Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), Ben Chandler (D-Ky.), and Larry Kissell (D-N.C.) had meetings planned with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition leader Tzipi Livni.

They also planned to tour areas in Israel subject to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.

"The recent upheavals across the Middle East will pose new challenges to the mutual security interests of the United States and Israel, and I look forward to having frank discussions about Israel’s safety and security and the ever-present threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Deutch, who is leading the trip, said in an April 22 statement.

That's Engel at the top.

With Obama probably putting enormous pressure on Netanyahu to make huge concessions next month in his joint session speech, we need all the help we can get.

Labels: Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Eliot Engel, Ted Deutch

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:57 AM 0 comments