Christmas spirit: UN quietly appropriated money on Christmas eve to create a blacklist of Israeli companies to target for BDS
Thanks to Barack Obama and John Kerry, the United Nations quietly appropriated $138,000 on Christmas eve to create a blacklist of Israeli companies for boycotting, divestiture and sanctions (BDS).
Lost amid the angry words that followed the Dec. 23 UN Security
Council vote that critics called an American betrayal of Israel was a
Christmas Eve appropriation of $138,700 to fund a database of companies
doing business in the West Bank. The measure puts UN prestige behind the
anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, say
critics.
“The types of data they are talking about acquiring
would be to form the basis for future sanctions against companies that
did business on the West Bank,” Fox News contributor and former U.S.
Ambassador to the UN John Bolton told FoxNews.com. “That’s the only
purpose of it that I can see.”
The request for funding, first adopted last April,
would “investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the
civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the
Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” which
extends to East Jerusalem, and would “produce a database of all
business enterprises” working in territories disputed between Israel and
the Palestinians.
Bolton said the database is an “effort to lay the
groundwork” for the UN Security Council to follow up on its
anti-settlement declaration by imposing costly economic sanctions.
The US opposed the appropriation, but in the General Assembly, it does not have a veto. This appropriation is yet another consequence of Obama-Kerry stabbing Israel in the back on the Security Council vote. The only thing Congress can do in response is to stop funding the UN.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, BDS, Donald Trump, John Bolton, John Kerry, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334
How badly did Obama and Kerry lie?
At least Israel and Iran can agree on something. Obama and Kerry are unreliable liars.
For the last two weeks, the lame duck Obama administration has been trying to depict itself as
totally passive in allowing UN Security Council Resolution 2334, condemning Israeli 'settlements' in Jerusalem (among other things), to pass.
Last week, Israel Radio reported on an
Egyptian newspaper report that put out a transcript of what was said to be a White House meeting with 'Palestinian negotiators.' Now, MEMRI has
translated that report into English. It's devastating. Among other things not previously reported, the 'Palestinians' asked that Obama cancel the designation of the PLO as a terrorist organization, and insisted that the 'Palestinian leadership' be allowed to move freely in the United States. Look for Obama to issue executive orders on these issues in the next two weeks.
On December 27, the Egyptian daily Al-Youm Al-Sabi',
which is close to Egyptian intelligence services, published an exposé
of the minutes of the secret talks. According to the report, by Ahmed
Gomaa, the Palestinian delegation included PLO Executive Committee
secretary and negotiating team leader Saeb Erekat; Palestinian general
intelligence chief Majid Faraj; Husam Zomlot, strategic affairs advisor
to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud 'Abbas; Palestinian Foreign
Ministry official Dr. Majed Bamya; Palestinian negotiations department
official Azem Bishara; Palestinian intelligence international relations
department chief Nasser 'Adwa; and head of the PLO delegation to
Washington Ma'an Erekat.
The report gave the details of the
Palestinian delegation's schedule during the visit, noting that "the
Palestinian side began its meetings on December 12, when Saeb Erekat and
Majid Faraj met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. The next day,
the two met with National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The entire
delegation met with an American team that included four representatives
of the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, for a six-hour
political-strategic meeting. Majid Faraj concluded his visit with a
lengthy meeting with the CIA chief."
According to the report, the
minutes of the "top secret" meeting of Kerry, Rice, Erekat, and Faraj
reveals U.S.-Palestinian coordination leading up to the UN Security
Council vote on Resolution 2334 regarding Israel's settlements, which
was adopted December 23. It states that the sides "agreed to cooperate
in drafting a resolution on the settlements" and that the U.S.
representative in the Security Council was "empowered" to coordinate
with the Palestinian UN representative on the resolution.
The meeting also, according to the
report, was aimed at coordinating Kerry's attendance at the upcoming
international Paris Conference set for January 15, 2017, in order to
promote a further international move regarding the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Kerry, it said, offered to propose his ideas for a permanent
arrangement "provided that they are supported by the Palestinian side."
At
the meeting, Rice pointed out the "danger" of the incoming Trump
administration's policies, the report stated, adding that both she and
Kerry had advised President 'Abbas to make no preliminary moves that
might provoke the new administration. Rice even offered to help arrange a
meeting between the Palestinian delegation and a representative from
the Trump team, by enlisting the help of World Jewish Congress president
Ronald Lauder.
Also at the meeting, Erekat warned
that if the U.S. Embassy was moved to Jerusalem, the Palestinians would
call to expel U.S. Embassies from Arab and Muslim capitals, the report
said.
The report added that Kerry and
Rice had fulsomely praised 'Abbas's policies and how he handled matters,
and harshly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
saying that he "aims to destroy the two-state solution."
...
U.S.
Representative To The Security Council Coordinated With Palestinian UN
Representative On The Issue Of The Resolution Condemning The Settlements
According to the Al-Youm Al-Sabi' report, "the minutes of the
meeting – which was attended by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and
National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and on the Palestinian side by PLO
Executive Committee Secretary and negotiations team leader Saeb Erekat,
and head of Palestinian general intelligence Maj,-Gen. Majid Faraj –
reveals that the sides agreed to collaborate regarding a resolution on
the settlements." According to the report, "during the meeting, the
American side focused on coordination of positions between Washington
and Ramallah regarding the resolution on the settlements, which was
brought to a vote in the Security Council and adopted several days
ago..."
The report stated that "the minutes of the meeting reveal
American-Palestinian coordination regarding the resolution on the
settlements" and that Kerry and Rice stressed that "they were willing to
cooperate with a balanced resolution, and that Washington's UN mission
was authorized to discuss this matter with the Palestinian
representative to the UN, Ambassador Riyad Mansour." It continued: "The
U.S.'s representative to the Security Council coordinated with the
Palestinian ambassador on the issue of the resolution condemning the
settlements."
Coordinating Kerry's Attendance At International Conference In France
The delegation also attempted to coordinate Kerry's attendance at the
Paris Conference, which will take place January 15, 2017, to promote a
further international move for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
according to the report. "As for the French initiative, U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry said that he could not attend [the conference if it
were to be held] December 21-22, but stressed that he could [attend it
if it were to be held] after January 9. The Palestinian delegation
stressed that 'Abbas had contacted the French side, and that it had
expressed its willingness to postpone the international conference [in
Paris] so that the American secretary of state could attend."
Possibility Of Kerry Presenting His Ideas For Permanent Solution
According to the report, "Kerry raised the
possibility of presenting ideas for a permanent solution, provided that
they are supported by the Palestinian side... and this refers to
principles that have already been raised as part of the Framework
Agreement.[3]
He also proposed that the Palestinian delegation travel to Saudi Arabia
to discuss these points, but according to the minutes, he did not
contact the Saudis on this matter. [Additionally,] according to the
minutes of the meeting, National Security Advisor Susan Rice rejected,
and ridiculed, the offer to propose ideas, arguing that the [incoming]
administration of Republican President Donald Trump will completely
oppose them."
Rice "Stressed The Danger Posed By The Trump Administration"
Rice, the report stated, "stressed the
danger posed by the Trump administration, which could take a position
different from that of all American administrations since 1967 on the
issue of Palestine and Israel. She emphasized that she took seriously
statements about moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and the Trump
administration's view of the settlements."
Kerry and Rice "advised Palestinian
President Mahmoud 'Abbas to not take any preliminary steps that could
provoke the Trump administration, such as dismantling the PA, turning to
the International Criminal Court, or ending security coordination with
Israel," said the report, adding: "They [also] stressed the need to
avoid military action or martyrdom [attacks], as these would greatly
jeopardize the Palestinian position.
"They praised the substantial efforts of
the Palestinian security apparatuses, specifically Palestinian [general]
intelligence, led by Majid Faraj, as part of what they called 'the
struggle against terrorism.' [The two] maintained that
Palestinian-American collaboration in this area is among the closest of
all the coordination between American apparatuses and security forces in
the region."
Rice Offered To Organize Meeting Between Ronald Lauder And Palestinian Delegation
"According to the minutes of the meeting,
Susan Rice asked whether the Palestinian delegation could meet with a
representative from Donald Trump's team. She clarified that she could
request intervention and could organize this by means of World Jewish
Congress President Ronald Lauder. Saeb Erekat responded that he had
already asked but that Lauder could not. He added: 'We were told that
they were still organizing the new administration, and that once they
were done, they would officially meet with the Palestinian side.'"
Erekat: If U.S. Embassy Is Moved To Jerusalem, We Will Call To Expel U.S. Embassies From Arab And Muslim Countries
"When Susan Rice asked what the
Palestinian response would be if the U.S. Embassy was moved to
Jerusalem, or if a new settlement bloc was annexed, Erekat responded:
'We will directly and immediately join 16 international organizations,
withdraw the PLO's recognition of Israel, and cut back our security,
political, and economic ties with the Israeli occupation regime, and we
will hold it fully responsible for the PA's collapse. Furthermore, we
will [call] on the Arab and Islamic peoples to expel U.S. Embassies from
their capitals.' Rice answered Erekat by saying: 'It seems that future
matters could be very complicated, and we are all apprehensive about
sitting down with Erekat because of his absolute knowledge of these
matters, and because of his memory and his sincerity.' She expressed the
American side's respect and friendship for Erekat, and apologized for
yelling at him in March 2014."
"The Palestinian Delegation Officially Demanded That The Law... Designating The PLO A Terrorist Organization Be Rescinded"
According to the report, "the Palestinian
side officially demanded that the 1987 U.S. law designating the PLO a
terrorist organization be rescinded.
[4]
Furthermore, both sides agreed to establish a bilateral commission to
examine visa requests from Palestinians and entry and movement visas for
Palestinian leadership in the U.S."
Read the whole thing.
Labels: American allies, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, designated terror organization, Jerusalem Embassy Act, John Kerry, Ron Lauder, Saeb Erekat, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334
'Palestinians' threaten violence if US moves embassy to Jerusalem
One of the first things Donald Trump did after he was elected President was to promise to
move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Now that they realize that Trump is serious (and has named my college classmate Dave Friedman his ambassador to prove it), the 'Palestinians' are responding in the only way they know how. They are threatening violence.
Let's go to the videotape.
JPost reports that
Trump is not backing down.
The Trump team has said that the US president-elect considers moving the embassy a "very big priority."
Throughout
his campaign for the presidency, Trump repeatedly said he would move
the US Embassy if elected – a political promise past US presidents have
frequently made, yet has never been held.
Longstanding US policy
is to treat the status of Jerusalem as an issue to be settled in
final-status negotiations with the Palestinians.
Longstanding US policy has also been to
veto all anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council, and not to let them pass, let alone
orchestrate their passage. This is the best response of all to Obama's and Kerry's betrayal of Israel.
And if the 'Palestinians' kill each other in response, מה טוב.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, David Friedman, Donald Trump, intifadeh, Jerusalem Embassy Act, John Kerry, Palestinians, US embassy in Tel Aviv
Krauthammer incinerates Obama's 'shameful legacy'
In the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer explains what was different about that UN Security Council resolution, and how the Obama administration
stabbed Israel in the back by allowing its passage.
An ordinary Israeli who lives or works in the Old City of Jerusalem
becomes an international pariah, a potential outlaw. To say nothing of
the soldiers of Israel’s citizen army. “Every pilot and every officer
and every soldier,” said a confidant of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, “we are waiting for him at The Hague,” i.e. the International Criminal Court.
Moreover,
the resolution undermines the very foundation of a half-century of
American Middle East policy. What becomes of “land for peace” if the
territories that Israel was to have traded for peace are, in advance,
declared to be Palestinian land to which Israel has no claim?
The peace parameters
enunciated so ostentatiously by Secretary of State John Kerry on
Wednesday are nearly identical to the Clinton parameters that Yasser
Arafat was offered and rejected in 2000 and that Abbas was offered by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Abbas, too, walked away.
Kerry
mentioned none of this because it undermines his blame-Israel
narrative. Yet Palestinian rejectionism works. The Security Council just
declared the territories legally Palestinian — without the Palestinians
having to concede anything, let alone peace. What incentive do the
Palestinians have to negotiate when they can get the terms — and
territory — they seek handed to them for free if they hold out long
enough?
Indeed. The Post can look back at
this column from 2009 and realize that the 'Palestinians' were correct.
Yet
on Wednesday afternoon, as he prepared for the White House meeting in a
suite at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Abbas insisted that his
only role was to wait. He will wait for Hamas to capitulate to his
demand that any Palestinian unity government recognize Israel and swear
off violence. And he will wait for the Obama administration to force a
recalcitrant Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction and
publicly accept the two-state formula.
Until Israel meets his
demands, the Palestinian president says, he will refuse to begin
negotiations. He won't even agree to help Obama's envoy, George J.
Mitchell, persuade Arab states to take small confidence-building
measures. "We can't talk to the Arabs until Israel agrees to freeze
settlements and recognize the two-state solution," he insisted in an
interview. "Until then we can't talk to anyone."
And what the Post doesn't mention is that Netanyahu is reported to have
offered even more in 2013.
If Hillary Clinton had won November's election, Israel would now have its back to the wall. Fortunately, Donald Trump won the election, and if he is willing to go to the wall in Israel's defense, perhaps this disgraceful resolution can be mitigated.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Donald Trump, East Jerusalem, Jerusalem construction, John Kerry, Judea and Samaria construction, Middle East peace process, Palestinian terrorists, settlement freeze
#CHANGE Moderate Arab states ignore Obama-Kerry initiative
If the moderate Arab states were supposed to latch onto Secretary of State Kerry's 'peace proposal' and use it, along with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to pressure Israel, someone forgot to tell them that. Or, as is more likely, they have
read the handwriting on the walls, and have realized that they will have to work with Donald Trump for the next 4-8 years.
But the official responses in Cairo, Riyadh and Amman seemed
calculated to make an impression on the incoming Trump administration
rather than to impel any immediate or urgent follow up on the Kerry
proposals. That was not expected, given that Kerry and President Barack
Obama have only three weeks left in office and Donald Trump has signaled
there will be a friendlier approach towards the policies of Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"Now, with the imminent change in the White House, Kerry's noble
views may very well remain a small footnote in the history books," the Jordan Times wrote in an editorial Thursday.
Jordan,
Egypt and Saudi Arabia are, to some extent, groping in the dark,
uncertain about what Trump policies that will strongly impact their
futures will look like. By giving essentially positive responses to
Kerry's proposals, "they are trying to show they are pro-peace, useful
and very relevant as mediators and mainstays of the process and trying
also to anticipate what the new administration in Washington wishes to
do," said Gabriel Ben-Dor, a Middle East specialist at Haifa University.
The countries also have their sights set on being relevant in advance
of the January 15 conference bringing together some 70 foreign ministers
in Paris whose goal is to reaffirm the necessity of a two-state
solution.
...
As Tel Aviv University Middle East scholar Bruce Maddy-Weitzman has
noted, close scrutiny of Cairo and Riyadh's reactions to Kerry indicate
that neither Arab country has the sense of urgency that Kerry conveyed
in his speech. Egypt's Foreign Ministry said that Kerry's principles
were "mostly consistent with the international consensus and Egypt's
vision but in the end what is important is the will to implement those
principles eventually."
Saudi Arabia welcomed the proposals,
according to an official at the Saudi foreign ministry, who said Riyadh
views them as being in accord with the majority of the resolutions of
international legality. Riyadh said that Kerry's proposals have elements
of the Arab Peace Initiative proposed by Saudi Arabia and adopted by an
Arab summit at Beirut in 2002. It added that the proposals represent an
"appropriate basis" for achieving a final settlement of the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
But, Maddy-Weitzman noted "there is no operative clause in the Saudi response to move forward fast and do this or that."
"This
suggests the Saudis understand there won't be significant movement any
time soon as a result of the speech," he said. "They recognize there is a
new administration coming in that is expressing itself differently on
Middle East issues. Saudi strategic priorities are elsewhere. There are
more acute issues occupying their thinking. The Palestinian-Israeli
issue is lower down. That doesn't mean they don't care and would go
along with anything the Israeli government would do."
"At this
point, the Saudis won't take the lead on Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy
unless the Trump administration takes the initiative or something forces
them to, like a new intifada." But Riyadh will try to persuade the US
not to move its Israel embassy to Jerusalem, Maddy-Weitzman predicted.
In its reaction to Kerry, Egypt was mindful of Trump's intervention a
week earlier against its sponsorship of the security council resolution
specifying that settlements have "no legal validity." Egypt withdrew its
sponsorship in deference to Trump and it formulated its response to
Kerry with Trump in mind, not wanting to appear to be confrontational
towards Israel.
Cairo, which viewed the Obama administration as
selling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during the Arab spring
revolt in 2011 and of subsequently backing the Muslim Brotherhood, has
high hopes for closer ties with Trump. Egypt is relieved to have an
administration coming in that will not make an issue out of its human
rights abuses in crushing the brotherhood and other opposition. "The
leaders of this 'terrorist' organization and those regional and Arab
powers that lend them support should realize that the election of Donald
Trump will usher in new directions for US foreign policy, which will
discontinue the 'interventionist' policies of the two previous US
administrations," wrote Hussein Haridy, a former foreign ministry
official, in al-Ahram weekly. "If this happens, there will be
much more effective cooperation between the American and Egyptian
governments in dealing constructively and successfully with existing
challenges and threats across the Middle East."
I haven't felt this optimistic since 2008, despite Obama-Kerry's attempts to incinerate Israel over the past two weeks. They're called 'lame ducks' for a reason.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump, Egypt, John Kerry, Jordan, Middle East peace process, our friends the Saudis, Saudi Arabia, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334
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
Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive!
The Obama administration's effort to deny Prime Minister Netanyahu's charge that
Obama was behind the passage of a
UN resolution declaring the Western Wall to be 'Palestinian territory' has come apart under the weight of its own lies.
You will recall, if you follow the links above that the Obama administration denied the Netanyahu government's accusations that Obama-Kerry were behind and orchestrating the UN resolution. And if you keep reading below, you will find out that in fact, the Obama administration has been orchestrating this resolution since September, and that John Kerry's little post-election trip to New Zealand (and Antartica) is likely connected to it.
On Wednesday morning, Israel Radio reported on an Egyptian newspaper report that published a summary of a meeting among Kerry, Susan Rice and chief 'Palestinian'
negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat. That led to this denial from US National Security Council spokesman Ned Price:
To which CAMERA analyst Gidon Shaviv responded.
Price equivocated.
Price never responded to the question.
But in fact, on Tuesday, the State Department's Mark Toner admitted that the meeting did take place. And
much more (full transcript
here).
QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, tensions have been
increasing since the UN vote on Friday. I’m sure you’ve seen all the
reports and heard a lot of the words. The Israeli officials are now
being quoted as saying that they have evidence that they will lay out to
the Trump administration of – in which the U.S., specifically Kerry,
had discussions with the Palestinians before the vote, a few weeks
before, during a visit to Washington where Saeb Erekat was around, and
basically that he pushed them to go to Egypt and to move ahead with this
resolution. That’s one of the things.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: So the question is: Was the U.S. hiding behind this
other group of countries to submit the resolution? Were those
discussions ever taken place? Because the Israelis feel that they’ve got
evidence that there was meddling by the Americans.
MR TONER: Excuse me. Forgive me. (Coughs.) I picked up a cold over the weekend too, unfortunately, so I apologize.
So you’re right. We’ve obviously seen the same reports, an
amalgamation of different allegations that somehow this was U.S.-driven
and precooked. What I’ll say – excuse me – (coughs) – is that we reject
the notion that the United States was the driving force behind this
resolution. That’s just not true. The United States did not draft this
resolution, nor did it put it forward. It was drafted and initially
introduced, as we all know, by Egypt, in coordination with the
Palestinians and others. When it was clear that the Egyptians and the
Palestinians would insist on bringing this resolution to a vote and that
every other country on the council would, in fact, support it, we made
clear to others, including those on the Security Council, that further
changes were needed to make the text more balanced. And that’s a
standard practice on – with regard to resolutions at the Security
Council. So there’s nothing new to this.
Actually, it's
not 'standard practice' unless you're looking for an excuse not to veto it. If the United States had planned to veto the resolution - as happened many times in the past - it would not have bothered to pretend to make the text 'more balanced,' because it would not have mattered. And it certainly would not have sent Secretary Kerry gallivanting around the world to work on it.
You look like you’re pouncing on me, but go ahead.
QUESTION: No, we just —
MR TONER: No, we’ll continue. I can continue, but if you have a – do you have a follow up?
QUESTION: No, no. Let’s just keep going with this.
MR TONER: Okay, sure. And this is a really important point. We
also made clear at every conversation – in every conversation – that
the President would make the final decision and that he would have to
review the final text before making his final decision. So the idea that
this was, again, precooked or that we had agreed upon the text weeks in
advance is just not accurate. And in fact —
QUESTION: But we know that —
MR TONER: Go ahead. I’m sorry. Go ahead.
QUESTION: No, we know that the U.S. didn’t draft it or put it
forward. But was the U.S. in any way coaxing on any – another group of
countries to move ahead and go and move ahead with this resolution?
You mean like 'humiliated' Joe Biden
leaning on Ukraine to improve the 'optics' and make it 14-0? But Toner didn't bother to explain that.
MR TONER: Well, again, these are – I mean, again, I think it’s
important to have the proper context, in that all through the fall
there was talk about – and we often got the question here and of course
we replied that we’re never going to discuss hypotheticals in terms of
what resolutions or what is circulating out there – but of course, there
has been for some time in the fall talk about this resolution or that
resolution with regard to the Middle East peace and the
Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Yes, of course. Because without the need to worry any more about himself or his party, the true Jew-hating Obama was free to come out.
So of course, in the – of course, in the course of those
conversations, we’re always making clear what our parameters are, what
our beliefs are, what our – what we need to see or what we – in order to
even consider a resolution. That’s part of the give-and-take of the UN.
QUESTION: But surely these countries, before they would move
ahead, would want to get the view of an influential member of the
Security Council of the UN of who – of what their position would be on
this.
MR TONER: Well, again, I think we – of course, as the draft or
the text was circulated, we said to those on the Security Council that –
what further changes were needed to make the text more balanced. And in
fact, we ended up abstaining because we didn’t feel it was balanced
enough in the sense of it didn’t hit hard enough on the
incitement-to-violence side of the coin.
No. When you abstain and you could have vetoed, that's a vote in favor. Let's call a spade a spade.
Go ahead. You look perplexed. (Laughter.) Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: At what stage did you intervene to try and balance? Was it after Egypt said they’d withdraw it?
MR TONER: I think it was once – yeah, I mean, once – I mean, I
don’t have a date certain. It was once the Egyptians and Palestinians
made it clear that they were going to advance this text or bring this
resolution to a vote and that, in fact, it would be supported by other
countries.
QUESTION: Does that date predate Mr. Erekat’s visit to the State Department?
MR TONER: I don’t know the date of his visit. But again, I’m
not – I’m not exactly – and I’m not necessarily excluding that when he
did visit to the State Department that they didn’t discuss possible
resolutions or anything like that in terms of draft language. But again,
there was no – nothing precooked. There was nothing – this was not some
move orchestrated by the United States.
Please.
Erekat 'visited' the State Department on December 12 - ten days before the Egyptians presented and withdrew the resolution, and eleven days before Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela - with open support from the UK and behind the scenes support from the US - presented it again. Orchestrated? Bet on it.
QUESTION: Could you be clear what you just said? I heard a
double negative in there. You’re not precluding that they didn’t discuss
it. Are you saying they – that when the Palestinians were here —
MR TONER: I don’t have a readout. Yeah, I don’t have a readout
of that meeting in front of me. I just – but I said I can imagine that
they talked about Middle East peace broadly and efforts to reinvigorate
the process. I don’t know that they discussed the possible action at the
UN. But of course, as we – as I said in answer to Lesley’s question,
that was something that was in the mix for some months now in New York
at the UN that there might be some action taken there.
This wouldn't be anywhere near as suspicious had the meeting been publicly disclosed on December 12. But if had, Israel would not have been blindsided.
QUESTION: And what about New Zealand, when the Secretary was there before Antarctica?
MR TONER: Yeah.
Yeah indeed. Let's interrupt for a minute. Here's a
New Zealand Herald report from November 13, five days after the US election.
One of the closed-door discussions between United States Secretary of
State John Kerry and the New Zealand Government today was a potential
resolution by the United Nations Security Council on a two-state
solution for the Israel - Palestinian conflict.
After the talks, Foreign Minister Murray McCully even raised the possibility of the US or New Zealand sponsoring a resolution.
"It
is a conversation we are engaged in deeply and we've spent some time
talking to Secretary Kerry about where the US might go on this.
"It is something that is still in play," McCully told reporters after talks today in Wellington.
New Zealand's two-year term on the Security Council will end in ignominy on Saturday. But then, we should not have been as surprised by
their behavior as we were. Our bad.
Back to the State Department.
QUESTION: And also I believe he had a meeting here with Mr. Shoukry at some point in early December.
MR TONER: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Was the resolution discussed at either of those meetings with those diplomats?
MR TONER: Again, I can’t specifically say whether the
resolution – but certainly, if a resolution or action at the UN was
discussed, it wasn’t discussed in the level of detail where there was
some final text. We always reserved the right with any text that was put
forward, drafted and put forward, to veto it or to not take action or
abstain, which is what we ended up doing.
Like I said - when you have a veto and you don't use it, you're voting in favor.
QUESTION: But you advised them on how to put
together a motion that the United States would feel comfortable
abstaining or voting in favor of?
MR TONER: Well, I think what we said is – and this is not just
unique to this process, but once a text, a draft text is to the point
where it’s going to be put forward to a vote, of course we would provide
input on what we believed were – was language that didn’t pass or
didn’t allow us to vote for it or —
QUESTION: You see what I’m saying?
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You didn’t just say bring whatever motion you like
up and we’ll vote however we feel about it. You were encouraging them to
bring forward a motion that you would feel comfortable not blocking.
Sounds like game, set and match right here.
MR TONER: Well, but we have to be really careful in how we’re talking about this because what the allegations —
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: No, I know and I understand that. But no, no, but
I’m saying that some of the allegations out there, frankly, are implying
that this was somehow some – as I said, some orchestrated action by the
U.S. to pass a resolution that was negative about settlement activity
in Israel, and the fact is that that’s just not the case. Of course, we
would always provide, when the final text was going up for a vote, our
opinion on where the red lines were. But I think that – I think this is
all a little bit of a sideshow, to be honest, that this was a resolution
that we could not in good conscience veto because it condemns violence,
it condemned incitement, it reiterates what has long been the
overwhelming consensus international view on settlements, and it calls
for the parties to take constructive steps to advance a two-state
solution on the ground. There was nothing in there that would prompt us
to veto that type of resolution.
Actually, no. The only party it calls on to do anything is
Israel.
QUESTION: But there was nothing in there —
MR TONER: And in fact —
QUESTION: — because you told them not to put anything in there that would cause you to veto it.
MR TONER: But that – but again, not at all. And I said we did
not take the lead in drafting this resolution. That was done by the
Egyptians with the Palestinians. But again, in any kind of resolution
process, of course there’s moments where – or I mean, it’s not like our
views regarding settlements or regarding resolutions with respect to
Israel aren’t well-known and well-vetted within the UN community.
There’s been many times in the past where we’ve not – or we vetoed
resolutions that we found to be biased towards Israel. But that’s
another point here is that there’s nothing – the other canard in all of
this is that this was somehow breaking with longstanding U.S. tradition
in the UN Security Council, when we all know that every administration
has vetoed – or rather has abstained or voted for similar resolutions.
Actually, no administration other than the Carter administration has ever called 'settlements' illegal. And no administration has ever called on 'all States'
to
distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the
State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967
That's right. In case you missed it, the Obama administration voted for a resolution that backs BDS.
QUESTION: But it’s true then that you had opportunities to ask them not to bring it forward at all and didn’t take them.
MR TONER: I’m not sure what you’re —
QUESTION: Well, instead of saying why not write the motion this way, you could have said please don’t bring a motion.
MR TONER: Well, again, I think when it was clear to us that
they were going to bring it to a vote and that every other council –
every other country on the council was going to support that resolution,
that draft text —
Since when does a country with veto power have to worry about what 'every other country on the council' is going to do, especially a week before ten of the council's 15 members are about to turn over? Funny that we never hear Russia or China worrying about what 'every other country on the council' is going to do.
But the effort to destroy Israel in the council
goes back much further than Kerry's trip to New Zealand in November. Here's Adam Kredo from the Washington Free Beacon.
Jonathan Schanzer, a Middle East expert and vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon
that he spoke with U.S. officials in September who admitted that “a
U.N. measure of some shape or form was actively considered,” a charge
that runs counter the White House’s official narrative.
“We know that this administration was at a minimum helping to shape a
final resolution at the United Nations and had been working on this for
months,” Schanzer said.
“This isn’t terribly dissimilar from the administration’s attempts to
spin the cash pallets they sent to Iran,” he added, referring to the
administration’s efforts to conceal the fact that it sent the Iranian
government some $1.7 billion in cash.
“The fact is, the administration has been flagged as being an active
participant in this U.N. resolution,” Schanzer said. “Now they wish to
try to spin this as inconsequential. This was an attempt by the
administration to lead from behind, as they have done countless times in
the past and which has failed countless times in the past.”
And if you're having any doubts whether to believe Schanzer or to believe the Obama-Kerry spin, please consider this.
One veteran foreign policy insider and former government official who
requested anonymity in order to speak freely described senior Obama
administration officials as “lying sacks of shit” who routinely feed the
press disinformation.
A senior congressional aide who is working on a package of repercussions aimed at the U.N. told the Free Beacon the administration is scrambling to provide excuses in response to the breakdown in its own narrative regarding the resolution.
“The administration got caught red handed, and now they’re talking
out of both sides of their mouth,” said the source, who was not
authorized to speak on record. “First they claimed the resolution was
simply not objectionable. Now they say it will actually help advance
peace. These denials only look more ridiculous with each passing day as
new evidence surfaces that the White House was behind this anti-Israel
resolution.”
The Obama administration has been caught several times misleading the
public about its campaign to discredit Israel, including the funding of
an organization that sought to unseat Netanyahu in the country’s last
election, according to one congressional adviser who works with
Republican and Democratic offices on Middle East issues.
All of which leads this Jew to believe that columnist and lawyer Kurt Schlichter is spot-on with this tweet.
Indeed.
Labels: American allies, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, John Kerry, New Zealand, Saeb Erekat, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334
It's not that Kerry doesn't get Israel - he's enraged he can't get rid of it
In an editorial this morning, the Wall Street Journal blasts John Kerry's 'marathon speech' on Wednesday in which he
reserved rage only for Israel in the entire Middle East.
We recite this history to show that it’s not for lack of U.S.
diplomacy that there is no peace—and that mishandled diplomacy has a way
of encouraging Palestinian violence. In 2000 then-President Bill Clinton
brought Israeli and Palestinian leaders to Camp David to negotiate a
final peace agreement, only to watch Palestinians walk away from an
offer that would have granted them a state on nearly all of Gaza and the
West Bank. That failure was followed by another Palestinian terror
campaign.
Israelis remember this. They remember that they elected leaders—Yitzhak Rabin in 1992, Ehud Barak in 1999, Ehud Olmert in 2006—who made repeated peace overtures to the Palestinians only to be met with violence and rejection.
In his speech, Mr. Kerry went out of his way to personalize his differences with current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
claiming he leads the “most right-wing” coalition in Israeli history.
But Israelis also remember that Mr. Netanyahu ordered a settlement
freeze, and that also brought peace no closer.
The lesson is that
Jewish settlements are not the main obstacle to peace. If they were,
Gaza would be on its way to becoming the Costa Rica of the
Mediterranean. The obstacle is Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right
to exist as a Jewish state in any borders. A Secretary of State who
wishes to resolve the conflict could have started from that premise,
while admonishing the Palestinians that they will never get a state so
long as its primary purpose is the destruction of its neighbor.
But
that Secretary isn’t Mr. Kerry. Though he made passing references to
Palestinian terror and incitement, the most he would say against it was
that it “must stop.” If the Administration has last-minute plans to back
this hollow exhortation with a diplomatic effort at the U.N., we
haven’t heard about it.
Contrast this with last week’s Security Council resolution, which the Obama
Administration refused to veto and which substantively changes
diplomatic understandings stretching to 1967. Mr. Kerry claimed
Wednesday that Resolution 2334 “does not break new ground.”
The
reality is that the resolution denies Israel legal claims to the
land—including Jewish holy sites such as the Western Wall—while
reversing the traditional land-for-peace formula that has been a
cornerstone of U.S. diplomacy for almost 50 years. In the world of
Resolution 2334, the land is no longer Israel’s to trade for peace. Mr.
Kerry also called East Jerusalem “occupied” territory, which contradicts Administration claims in the 2015 Supreme Court case, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, that the U.S. does not recognize any sovereignty over Jerusalem.
The
larger question is what all this means for the prospects of an eventual
settlement. Mr. Kerry made a passionate plea in his speech for
preserving the possibility of a two-state solution for Jews and
Palestinians. That’s a worthy goal in theory, assuming a Palestinian
state doesn’t become another Yemen or South Sudan.
But the effect
of Mr. Kerry’s efforts will be to put it further out of reach.
Palestinians will now be emboldened to believe they can get what they
want at the U.N. and through public campaigns to boycott Israel without
making concessions. Israelis will be convinced that Western assurances
of support are insincere and reversible.
It's not that Kerry doesn't get all those things. He does. It's that in Kerry's 60's radical mind - like his boss' -
Israel is a
neo-colonialist creation of the West that has no right to exist among the '
natives' of the Middle East.
The only reason Kerry doesn't come right out and say it is because while that kind of talk is
acceptable in Europe, it's not acceptable (yet) in the US. Thanks to Donald Trump defeating Hillary Clinton in last month's election, it may never become acceptable in the US.
And that is the source of Kerry's rage.
Labels: anti-colonialist, Barack Hussein Obama, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, settlements, two-state solution, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334
'Most transparent administration evah' stonewalls Congress on Iran
Adam Kredo reports on the Obama administration's efforts to stonewall Congressional investigations into Obama's
$1.7 billion cash payment to Iran.
As leading members of Congress petition the Obama administration for
answers about what many describe as a $1.7 billion “ransom” payment to
Iran, Obama administration officials are doubling down on their refusal
to answer questions about the secret negotiations with Iran that led to
this payment.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), a vocal opponent of last year’s nuclear
deal with Iran, has been seeking answers from senior Obama
administration officials since at least late September. However,
officials continue to stonewall the senator’s inquiries, according to
senior congressional sources and formal communications between Rubio and
the State Department obtained by the Free Beacon.
Rubio and several other lawmakers have petitioned the Obama
administration for documents and information about the secret
negotiations that resulted in Tehran receiving $1.7 billion in cash and a
promise from the United States to further roll back sanctions on an
Iranian financial institution that helped finance the country’s illicit
ballistic missile program.
...
Rubio submitted a list of questions about the deal to Deputy
Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sept. 29 during a hearing aimed at
examining these payments to Iran.
Blinken finally provided answers to these questions last week, but
declined to address all specific questions Rubio posed about the secret
negotiations over the $1.7 billion payment.
While the Obama administration has maintained for months that the payment was not part of a ransom package, the Free Beacon
and other publications have disclosed in recent weeks that the United
States did engage in secret diplomacy with Iran on a range of issues,
including the release of American hostages and the $1.7 billion payment.
These issues were addressed in three separate agreements that were
only finalized once the United States agreed to provide Tehran with the
$1.7 billion payment. Secret documents stored on Capitol Hill and
treated in a classified manner show that each of the agreements hinged
on the cash payment, the Free Beacon first disclosed in October.
Rubio and other lawmakers have also sought answers from Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, who would have played a role in signing off on
the agreements. Lynch has declined to answer questions, prompting Rubio
and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), the incoming CIA director, to accuse
her of “pleading the fifth” before Congress.
The White House has not responded to similar questions submitted by Rubio on Sept. 10,
and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has not answered a series of queries
posed on Oct. 25, according to sources who accused the administration of
intentionally dodging congressional oversight.
Rubio asked Blinken to provide information on any U.S. official who
signed off on the secret deals, and to specify if the agreements were
part of the formal nuclear agreement or were inked separately. He also
asked whether the deals were tied to the release of U.S. hostages.
Rubio hopes to obtain the name of the Iranian official or officials
who signed these documents. Sources familiar with the deals and secret
documents stored on Capitol Hill told the Free Beacon it is likely the United States inked these deals with a representative of Iran’s intelligence apparatus.
Blinken did not provide firm answers to any of these questions, according to a copy of his formal communication to Rubio viewed by the Free Beacon.
He maintained that the cash payment was part of a decades-old legal
dispute with Tehran before the international claims tribunal at the
Hague.
The saddest part of all this is that most of the damage Obama has caused to American interests cannot be undone, and Obama, Kerry, Wendy Sherman Valerie Jarrett, Loretta Lynch and all the rest of this treasonous crew are unlikely to ever face prosecution for it.
A Presidency that will live in infamy. #ObamaLegacy
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, ransom, Valerie Jarrett, Wendy Sherman
Astounding: US Embassy has left terror victim's body in Israeli morgue for six years
Sorry for the lack of posting - I am totally swamped with work and has been all week. This will be quick.
I am embedding a Facebook post by Kay Wilson, a terror victim, who describes the inaction of the US Embassy in Israel under both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, with respect to the body of Kristine Luken. Luken was murdered in the same
terror attack in which Wilson was injured.
This post is beyond shocking....
I have no words to describe my disgust with the United States government over this incident.
Labels: Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Palestinian terrorism, terror victims, US embassy in Tel Aviv
Hillary Clinton's 'facade of a peace process' would require releasing real terrorists
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
The latest Wikileaks email dump discloses that Hillary Clinton believes that a '
facade of a peace process' would be better than no peace process at all.
Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton wrote to her senior advisors, a few days after the Israeli elections, that she believes that a "Potemkin" peace process between Israel and the Palestinians (meaning a peace process that was only for show) was better than no peace process at all, a Clinton campaign email posted on WikiLeaks shows.
On March 23, 2016 at 8:56 P.M. Clinton's senior foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan emailed Clinton and John Podesta, chairman of her presidential campaign. If Clinton is elected, Sullivan is likely to be appointed White House National Security Advisor. The email sent by Sullivan included a link to a New York Times article discussing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's apology for his Election Day statement that “Arab voters are coming in droves to the ballot boxes." By the link to the article, Sullivan wrote Clinton and Podesta "Unsurprisingly, Pragmatic Bibi makes an appearance."
Seven minutes later Clinton responded positively to Netanyahu's comments quoted in the article. She wrote that Netanyahu's apology was "an opening that should be exploited," and tied it to the promoting of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. "A Potemkin process is better than nothing," and referred her advisors to another New York Times article published a few days earlier in which Netanyahu's next moves as prime minister were described.
A 'Potemkin' peace process would not come without cost. Without a price in Jewish blood, the 'Palestinians' won't show up.
We had one of those during the Obama administration. We released 78 terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands to pay for it. It ended badly, with our Defense Minister under attack (and apologizing) for calling US Secretary of State John Kerry a messianic (a fair description especially if you consider
this). Thanks, but no thanks.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Palestinian terrorists, Wikileaks
Think tank: P 5+1 secretly allowed Iran to evade nuke restrictions to allow sanctions to be lifted
The
Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security reports that the United States and its partners agreed "in secret"
to allow Iran to evade some restrictions in last year's landmark nuclear
agreement in order to meet the deadline for it to start getting relief
from economic sanctions.
The group's president David Albright, a
former U.N. weapons inspector, said that, "the exemptions or loopholes are happening in secret, and it appears that they favor Iran."
Among the exemptions were two that allowed
Iran to exceed the deal's limits on how much low-enriched uranium (LEU)
it can keep in its nuclear facilities, the report said. LEU can be
purified into highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium.
The
exemptions, the report said, were approved by the joint commission the
deal created to oversee implementation of the accord. The commission is
comprised of the United States and its negotiating partners -- called
the P5+1 -- and Iran.
One senior
"knowledgeable" official was cited by the report as saying that if the
joint commission had not acted to create these exemptions, some of
Iran’s nuclear facilities would not have been in compliance with the
deal by Jan. 16, the deadline for the beginning of the lifting of
sanctions.
The U.S. administration
has said that the world powers that negotiated the accord -- the United
States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- made no secret
arrangements.
A White House
official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the joint commission
and its role were "not secret." He did not address the report's
assertions of exemptions.
The report says that Congress was notified of the exemptions... after they went into effect. But two key Senators - Republican Bob Corker and Democrat Robert Menendez deny being briefed on the exemptions.
But it gets worse. You see, not only was Iran exempted from the requirement to reduce its LEU... but no one even knows by how much.
As part of the concessions that allowed Iran
to exceed uranium limits, the joint commission agreed to exempt unknown
quantities of 3.5 percent LEU contained in liquid, solid and sludge
wastes stored at Iranian nuclear facilities, according to the
report. The agreement restricts Iran to stockpiling only 300 kg of 3.5
percent LEU.
The commission
approved a second exemption for an unknown quantity of near 20 percent
LEU in "lab contaminant" that was determined to be unrecoverable, the
report said. The nuclear agreement requires Iran to fabricate all such
LEU into research reactor fuel.
If
the total amount of excess LEU Iran possesses is unknown, it is
impossible to know how much weapons-grade uranium it could yield,
experts said.
And there's more:
The draft report said the joint commission
also agreed to allow Iran to keep operating 19 radiation containment
chambers larger than the accord set. These so-called "hot cells" are
used for handling radioactive material but can be "misused for secret,
mostly small-scale plutonium separation efforts," said the report.
Plutonium is another nuclear weapons fuel.
The
deal allowed Iran to meet a 130-tonne limit on heavy water produced at
its Arak facility by selling its excess stock on the open market. But
with no buyer available, the joint commission helped Tehran meet the
sanctions relief deadline by allowing it to send 50 tonnes of the
material -- which can be used in nuclear weapons production -- to Oman,
where it was stored under Iranian control, the report said.
The
shipment to Oman of the heavy water that can be used in nuclear weapons
production has already been reported. Albright's report made the new
assertion that the joint committee had approved this concession.
Wow....
You can bet that now that it's more than a year and a half later, Hillary Clinton's response will be 'what difference does it make now?' But it still does make a difference. Clinton supports the deal. Trump says he will 'renegotiate' it. Okay, I will grant that renegotiating the deal after all that money is out the door only has a chance of solving the nuclear weapons problem, and not the terror money problem. But at some point, actions have to have consequences.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Hillary Clinton, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Robert Menendez, uranium enrichment
October 8, 2016: The end of the 'Palestinian Authority'
There are 'local' 'Palestinian' elections scheduled for October 8, and while '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen may be hoping that Israel will step in to stop them, because Hamas seems likely to win them, that is increasingly unlikely according to Caroline Glick, who sees the elections as signifying
the end of the 'Palestinian Authority.'
Hamas is widely expected to win control over most of the local
governments in Judea and Samaria. Hamas’s coming takeover of the
municipalities is likely playing a role in decisions by Fatah terrorist
cells to reject the authority of the PA. Many of those cells can be
expected to transfer their allegiance to Hamas once the terrorist group
wins the elections.
Given his Fatah party’s looming electoral
defeat, more and more PA functionaries are wondering why Abbas doesn’t
use the growing anarchy in Palestinian cities as a reason to cancel
them. Abbas seems to have calculated that Israel will step in and, as
it has repeatedly done over the past 20 years, cancel the elections for
him.
Media organs Abbas controls are full of conspiracy theories
whose bottom line is that Israel is not canceling the elections Abbas
declared because it is in cahoots with Hamas and other “collaborators”
to undermine the PA.
Although Israel, of course, is in cahoots
with no one, it is the case that the government has apparently finally
lost its patience with Abbas and is looking past him.
Repeated
angry denunciations by government leaders of Abbas for his lead role in
inciting violence against Israelis, leading the international movement
to delegitimize Israel, refusing to negotiate anything with its
leaders, and radicalizing Palestinian society, are finally being
translated into policy.
Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman’s
recent announcement that Israel is adopting a carrot-andstick approach
not toward the PA but toward the Palestinians themselves, and will
advance development projects in areas where terrorism levels are low
and take a hard line against areas where terrorist cells are most
active, has sent shock waves through Abbas’s palaces.
For 22
years, Israel has bowed to Palestinian and Western demands and agreed
to speak only to PA functionaries and Palestinian civilians authorized
by the PA to speak to Israelis. Liberman’s decision to base Israel’s
actions on the ground on the behavior of the Palestinians themselves
rather than act in accordance with PA directives, along with his
decision to speak directly to Palestinian businessmen and others, marks
the end of Israel’s acceptance of this practice.
Without a
doubt, Israel’s willingness to let Abbas fall is in part a function of
the wider Arab world’s increased indifference to, if not disgust with
the Palestinians. As MEMRI has documented, the Arab media is
registering growing impatience with PA spokespeople. Arab commentators
have harshly criticized PA functionaries who continue to insist their
conflict with Israel is the most pressing issue on the pan-Arab agenda.
The
disintegration of Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya and the rise of Iran as
a mortal threat, along with Israel’s growing importance as an ally to
Sunni Arab regimes have made the Palestinian cause look downright
offensive to large swaths of the Arab world.
Part of Israel’s
willingness to let Abbas fall also owes to its inevitability. Once
Hamas wins the elections and takes control over the local governments,
Abbas’s already weakened position will become unsustainable. As is
already happening in towns and villages throughout the areas, Fatah
cells will transfer their allegiance to Hamas. The areas will become
Balkanized and radicalized still further.
Confrontation between Israel and the Hamas-controlled Palestinians in Judea and Samaria is inevitable.
Moreover,
this process will likely be rapid. Just as Hamas’s complete takeover
of Gaza from Fatah forces happened seemingly overnight in June 2007, so
its seizure of control over Judea and Samaria will happen in the blink
of an eye.
The collapse of the 'Palestinian Authority' and the likely end of the 'two-state solution' are also part of Barack Hussein Obama's disastrous foreign policy legacy. It's been more than seven years since 'Abbas' told the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl that his only role in the 'peace process' was to
wait until President Obama forced Prime Minister Netanyahu to give him what he wanted.
Yet on Wednesday afternoon, as he prepared for the White House meeting
in a suite at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Abbas insisted that his
only role was to wait. He will wait for Hamas to capitulate to his
demand that any Palestinian unity government recognize Israel and swear
off violence. And he will wait for the Obama administration to force a
recalcitrant Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction and
publicly accept the two-state formula.
Until Israel meets his demands, the Palestinian president says, he will
refuse to begin negotiations. He won't even agree to help Obama's envoy,
George J. Mitchell, persuade Arab states to take small
confidence-building measures. "We can't talk to the Arabs until Israel
agrees to freeze settlements and recognize the two-state solution," he
insisted in an interview. "Until then we can't talk to anyone."
So why is that Obama's fault? Because instead of taking 'Abbas' to task for his recalcitrance, Obama and his two Secretaries of State pandered to the 'Palestinian leader,' continuing to pressure only Israel to make concessions. Abu Mazen read that correctly seven years ago, and he still reads it correctly today.
What's interesting about Abbas's hardline position, however, is what it
says about the message that Obama's first Middle East steps have sent to
Palestinians and Arab governments. From its first days the Bush
administration made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East
was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism,
established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters
for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major
concessions from Israel.
Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a
West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has
shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian
fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make
critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees,
while Arabs passively watch and applaud. "The Americans are the leaders
of the world," Abbas told me and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt.
"They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago
they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, 'You
have to comply with the conditions.' "
That is why for the past seven years, nothing has happened with the 'peace process.' And that is why nothing will happen during Obama's remaining months in office. Obama only knows how to pressure one side, and the Democratically elected government of Israel has a much better ability to resist Obama's pressure than does Abu Mazen, in his 11th year of a four-year term.
At this point, as Caroline Glick notes above, there are more reasons for peace not to happen than there were seven years ago. The Arabs don't care about the 'Palestinians' anymore. They are busy with their own. If there was an opportunity for peace during the past seven years, it was surely missed.
And that is Obama's legacy to our region.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Hillary Clinton, Jackson Diehl, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, settlement freeze
The Manchurian money transfer
Greetings from Paris. I'm on my way home.
The Obama administration is stonewalling a Congressional inquiry that's looking into how the '
other $1.3 billion' in ransom money got
paid over to Iran.
The Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice have all rebuffed a
congressional probe into the circumstances surrounding the $1.3 billion
payment to Iran, which is part of an additional $400 million cash payout
that occurred just prior to the release of several U.S. hostages and
led to accusations that the administration had paid Iran a ransom.
The Obama administration has admitted
in recent days that the $400 million cash delivery to Iran was part of
an effort to secure the release of these American hostages, raising
further questions on Capitol Hill about White House efforts to suppress
these details from the public.
...
The administration is also withholding key details about the payment
from leading members of Congress, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas)
and Mike Lee (R., Utah), who launched an inquiry into the matter earlier this month.
The Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice all failed to respond
to the inquiry by Monday’s deadline, according to congressional sources
tracking the matter.
“The already bizarre circumstances surrounding the $1.7 billion
payment to the Islamic Republic have only gotten stranger in the weeks
since we learned of the $400 million in cash that was sent to the
Iranian regime last January 16th,” Cruz said to the Free Beacon. “If
this payment was, as the Obama administration insists, a
straightforward settlement of an old debt that it would have cost
America more to contest, why all the secrecy?”
The State Department said it does not know how the remaining $1.3
billion was transferred or to whom it was transferred. Cruz described
this disclosure as “confounding.”
...
“While we are deeply concerned about the national security
implications of the administration’s cash-for-hostages scheme,
especially in light of reports that Iran has already arrested additional
Americans, the purpose of this letter is to inquire about the legality
of the payment,” the senators wrote in an Aug. 12 letter.
“It is imperative that the administration provide a full accounting
of its conduct with respect to the $400 million cash payment to Iran,”
they wrote. “If the administration violated the law, then Congress and
the American people should be made aware of it so that they can hold the
appropriate officials accountable and take whatever steps necessary to
strengthen the law and prevent any reoccurrence.”
While the administration has remained silent about the circumstances
surrounding the payment, investigative reporter Claudia Rosett recently disclosed that the Treasury Department transferred just under $1.3 billion to the State Department in 13 “large identical sums.”
The funds, allocated for “foreign claims,” could shine a light on how
the administration moved taxpayer funds into the State Department’s
purview in order to provide the additional payment to Iran.
In 13 individual payments of $99,999,999.99, the Treasury Department
moved a total of 1,299,999,999.87, which roughly amounts to the
remaining money owed to Iran.
All of this reminds me of some of the other mysteries of the Manchurian candidate Barack Hussein Obama. His
birth certificate. His
college transcript.
Obamacare's 'after we pass the bill, you can read the bill.' The 'secret negotiations' (and the
doctoring of a State Department press briefing about them) and
secret agreements with Iran. There's a pattern here and it's not a pretty one. It's a pattern of dishonesty. And it's a pattern that's being continued by
Hillary Clinton.
When will it end?
Labels: Ayatollah Ali Khameni, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Jen Psaki, John Kerry, Obamacare, prisoner exchange, Shah Reza Pahlavi, US State Department
"Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies... on an unmarked cargo plane."
The United States government paid
$400 million in cash - in small unmarked euros and Swiss francs and other currencies packed on pallets and delivered in unmarked cargo planes - in return for the release of hostages in Iran in January.
Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies
were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these
officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the
Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.
The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the 1979 fall of Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The settlement, which resolved claims before an international
tribunal in The Hague, also coincided with the formal implementation
that same weekend of the landmark nuclear agreement reached between
Tehran, the U.S. and other global powers the summer before.
“With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” President Barack Obama said at the White House on Jan. 17—without disclosing the $400 million cash payment.
Senior
U.S. officials denied any link between the payment and the prisoner
exchange. They say the way the various strands came together
simultaneously was coincidental, not the result of any quid pro quo.
Really? They expect us to believe there's no connection? Or perhaps that this is '
normal political fibbing'? I'm not the only one who doesn't buy it.
But U.S. officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the
prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained
something tangible.
Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas
and a fierce foe of the Iran nuclear deal, accused President Barack
Obama of paying “a $1.7 billion ransom to the ayatollahs for U.S.
hostages.”
“This break with longstanding U.S. policy put a price
on the head of Americans, and has led Iran to continue its illegal
seizures” of Americans, he said.
Ya think?
Since the cash shipment, the intelligence arm of the Revolutionary Guard
has arrested two more Iranian-Americans. Tehran has also detained
dual-nationals from France, Canada and the U.K. in recent months.
But this is just the start of the rewards for Obama's and Kerry's sellout to Iran.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials have said they were certain Washington was
going to lose the arbitration in The Hague, where Iran was seeking more
than $10 billion, and described the settlement as a bargain for
taxpayers.
That's in line with Obama's approach to budgeting: A trillion here, a trillion there, eventually it starts to add up to real money.
Of course, the Iranians are happy to call a spade, a spade.
Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials
describing the cash as a ransom payment. The Iranian foreign ministry
didn’t respond to a request for comment.
And the Americans are all too happy to accommodate them.
The $400 million was
paid in foreign currency because any transaction with Iran in U.S.
dollars is illegal under U.S. law. Sanctions also complicate Tehran’s
access to global banks.
“Sometimes the Iranians want cash
because it’s so hard for them to access things in the international
financial system,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on the January
cash delivery. “They know it can take months just to figure out how to
wire money from one place to another.”
There's much more.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Ayatollah Ali Khameni, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, prisoner exchange, Shah Reza Pahlavi
