Israel bars UNESCO from Hebron
Israel has
barred a UNESCO team that is 'investigating' whether the Cave of the Patriarchs (Me'oras HaMachpeila) should become a 'protected' World Heritage site from visiting the site or the city.
Hebron’s Old City, including the Tomb of the Patriarchs, is one of the
35 sites the World Heritage Committee plans to consider for inscription
on the World Heritage List when it meets in Krakow, Poland from July
2-12.
The Palestinian Authority has fast tracked the inscription process by claiming that the site is endangered.
Since UNESCO recognized Palestine as a member state in 2011, the
Palestinian Authority has similarly fast tracked inscription of two
other sites on the list of World Heritage in Danger. This includes the
Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route in Bethlehem in 2012 and
the ancient terraces of Battir (2014).
The International Council
on Monuments and Sites, a professional body, which investigates
nomination requests and provides recommendations for inscription on the
list of World Heritage in Danger had recommended that both nominations
go through the normal process after making field visits to both sites.
This
time Israel has rejected its request to make a field visit to Hebron,
this includes a refusal to grant entry visas to Israel for the group,
Shama HaCohen said.
The 21-member World Heritage Committee
rejected the ICOMOS conclusions not to place the Church of the Nativity
and the terrace of Battir on its endangered list, Shama HaCohen said.
Therefore,
it’s “a shame to waste the time and money” of the ICOMOS committee
whose recommendations are otherwise typically adhered to with regard to
the inscription process, Shama HaCohen said.
“Israel won’t take
part in and won’t legitimize any Palestinian political moves under the
guise of culture and heritage,” Shama HaCohen said.
UNESCO - and all UN agencies - should be barred from Israel altogether. The only reason they come here is to try to destroy us.
Labels: Hebron, Machpeila cave, Palestinian Authority, UNESCO, United Nations
Trump Towers at Turtle Bay?
Charles Krauthammer has some great ideas for what to do about the United Nations.
Let's go to the videotape.
If the US is no longer in the UN, and the UN is no longer in the US, will any of their resolutions mean anything?
Trump Towers at Turtle Bay. Heh.
Labels: Charles Krauthammer, Donald Trump, United Nations
Obama asks Abu Mazen to wait until after November 8
If anyone out there doesn't yet believe that President Hussein Obama is planning a
nasty November surprise for Israel, please consider
this:
On
the surface, the latest message to the Palestinian Authority from the
Obama administration is no different from the past two decades of
American policy: the U.S. will veto any resolution attacking Israel or
demanding Palestinian independence without them first making peace with
the Jewish state. But, as Haaretz reported, there
was one significant caveat to the warning. They were told not to push
for any such resolution until after the presidential election next
month.
The “senior Palestinian official” who spoke of this message to Haaretz
said PA leader Mahmoud Abbas had “no illusions and no expectations”
that the U.S. wouldn’t veto any resolution they put forward. They also
thought Washington might not have any plan of its own ready. “All we
know is that there are ideas.” But the significance of those “ideas” is a
function of the time frame enunciated by the administration.
If
President Obama had no plans to use his last two months in office to
launch some kind of a diplomatic initiative on the Middle East or to
stick it to the Israelis and his longtime antagonist Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, then why would he even mention the election? Were
the U.S. to keep faith with the Israelis, the Palestinians would just be
told that there would be no change in American policy. Period. Abbas
and the PA would be put on notice that, if they actually had any desire
for peace or hope of future independence, they should do what they
promised to do in the Oslo Accords: head back into direct negotiations
with the Israelis.
...
Yet nothing the
Palestinians have done has been enough to cause Obama to rethink the
mistaken assumption he brought with him into the White House in January
2009. He still thinks creating more daylight between the U.S. and Israel
is the best path to peace, or, at least, is the stance that reflects
his personal inclinations. That’s why he’s still flirting with the idea
of using the lame duck period between the presidential election and the
inauguration of his successor to put forward some kind of plan to
pressure Israel, or even going as far as betraying the Jewish state at
the UN by allowing a pro-Palestinian resolution to pass without an
American veto. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Kerry told Netanyahu that the administration was still thinking about it. Now they’ve told the Palestinians to hold their fire until November 9th.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to connect the dots and
realize that there is an excellent chance that Obama will finally make
good on this threat. The president may make a gesture before leaving
office that will damage the U.S.-Israel alliance in a way that even a
less hostile president won’t be able to completely undo.
Asking
the Palestinians to wait until after the election is a reflection of the
fact that Obama knows any move against Israel would hurt Hillary
Clinton. But with only 18 days to go until the election, friends of
Israel–both Republicans and especially Democrats–need to use this time
to speak up against any last minute betrayal of Israel.
Which Democrats will speak out against any last minute betrayal of Israel? Surely not Hillary Clinton.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, Middle East peace process, two-state solution, United Nations, US presidential campaign 2016
United Nations has awarded tens of millions in 'aid' contracts to Assad cronies
The United Nations has awarded tens of millions of dollars in aid contracts to people associated with the Assad regime, including the dictator's wife Asma, and close Assad associate Rami Makhlouf. According to Britain's Guardian, many of the persons who received the contracts are
subject to United States and European Union sanctions.
The UN says it can only work with a small number of partners approved
by President Assad and that it does all it can to ensure the money is
spent properly.
“Of paramount importance is reaching as many vulnerable civilians as possible,” a spokesman said. “Our choices in Syria
are limited by a highly insecure context where finding companies and
partners who operate in besieged and hard to reach areas is extremely
challenging.”
However, critics believe the UN mission is in danger of being compromised.
They believe aid is being prioritised in government-held areas and
argue UN money is effectively helping to prop up a regime responsible
for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens.
UN insiders admit the relief mission in Syria is the most expensive, challenging and complex it has ever undertaken.
But the contentious decisions it has had to make are now exposed for
the first time by a Guardian analysis of hundreds of contracts it has
awarded since the operation began in 2011.
This shows that:
- The UN has paid more than $13m to the Syrian government to boost
farming and agriculture, yet the EU has banned trade with the
departments in question for fear of how the money will be used.
- The UN has paid at least $4m to the state-owned fuel supplier, which is also on the EU sanctions list.
- The World Health Organisation has spent more than $5m to support
Syria’s national blood bank – but this is being controlled by Assad’s
defence department. Documents seen by the Guardian show funds spent on
blood supplies came directly from donors who have economic sanctions
against the Syrian government, including the UK. They also show the WHO
had “concrete concerns” about whether blood supplies would reach those
in need, or be directed to the military first.
- Two UN agencies have partnered with the Syria Trust charity, an
organisation started and chaired by President Assad’s wife, Asma,
spending a total of $8.5m. The first lady is under both US and EU
sanctions.
- Unicef has paid $267,933 to the Al-Bustan Association, owned and run
by Rami Makhlouf, Syria’s wealthiest man. He is a friend and cousin of
Assad, and his charity has been linked to several pro-regime militia
groups.
- Makhlouf runs the mobile phone network Syriatel, which the UN has
also paid at least $700,000 in recent years. Makhlouf is on the EU
sanctions list and was described in US diplomatic cables as the country’s “poster boy for corruption”.
- Contracts have been awarded across UN departments with companies run by or linked to individuals under sanctions.
These contracts show how the United Nations operation has quietly secured deals with individuals and companies that have been designated off-limits by Europe and the US.
On top of this, analysis of the United Nations own procurement
documents show its agencies have done business with at least another 258
Syrian companies, paying sums as high as $54m and £36m, down to
$30,000. Many are likely to have links to Assad, or those close to him.
There's more too -
read the whole thing.
If the Obama administration and the Europeans had expended even half the effort on Syria that they have expended on the 'poor' 'oppressed' 'Palestinians' over the past five years, it is hard to believe that the situation would be this bad. But they don't. Unfortunately for Syrians, "No Jews = No News" and the news that
Jews have actually been saving Syrians almost isn't being reported anywhere outside of Israel.
Labels: Asma al-Assad, Bashar al-Assad, corruption, Syria, Syrian uprising, United Nations
Deja vu all over again: Israel charges UN employee with providing aid to Hamas in Gaza
It's been just five days since Israel charged the head of the World Vision charity in Gaza with
siphoning off $43 million for Hamas in the last six years.
Now, an employee of the United Nations' Gaza development agency, UNDP, has been
charged with aiding Hamas.
Israel's Shin Bet internal security agency said 38-year-old Waheed
Borsh has worked as an engineer for UNDP, the U.N. development agency,
for 13 years. It said he was arrested in July and confessed to using his
position to help Hamas.
The Shin Bet said Borsh used UNDP resources last year to build a
jetty for Hamas' naval forces and that he persuaded his managers to
prioritize the reconstruction of houses damaged in conflicts with Israel
in areas where Hamas members lived.
Israel's Foreign Ministry said it has informed U.N. officials of the
arrest and the allegations and expects the U.N. to "take concrete
measures to ensure that humanitarian activities actually assist those in
need in Gaza instead of assisting the terrorist leaders of Hamas."
Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon said he was
concerned about a "worrying trend of U.N. exploitation by Hamas."
A U.N. spokesman in Jerusalem could not immediately be reached.
Imagine what would happen if Israel didn't have a 'blockade' of Gaza in place.
Labels: Gaza, Gaza blockade, Hamas, terror funding, UN terrorist funding, United Nations
Golan Druze: What 'Israeli occupation'?
The Mayor of the Druze town of Majdal Shams on the Golan Heights dismisses as '
a total joke' a UN assertion that Golan Druze suffer from the 'hardship' of 'Israeli occupation.'
Dulan abu-Saleh, the mayor of Majdal Shams, the largest Druze town in
the Golan, told the Makor Rishon newspaper that the U.N. Economic and
Social Council’s recent statement on the area was “a total joke,” the
daily reported Friday.
...
Abu-Saleh objected to the inclusion of his native area in the U.N.
panel’s statement earlier this month, which said that “economic and
social repercussions of the occupation on the living conditions of the
Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories, including
East Jerusalem and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan.”
“I don’t understand what they’re talking about, it’s laughable,”
abu-Saleh said. Druze in the Golan “don’t serve in the IDF and so far
are only receiving from the state.”
Referencing the war in Syria, he
said: “Why don’t they condemn the horrors in Syria, where dozens of
children are killed daily? Golan residents have a good life.”
He also said: “Although we weren’t included in some major cabinet
decisions on budgets, when we build and make up plans we never felt
discrimination. On the contrary, we always found an attentive ear.”
Prior to the eruption in 2011 of a civil war in Syria, only 1,700 of
the Golan’s Druze claimed Israeli citizenship offered to them. Hundreds
have applied since then.
And Abu-Saleh is not a lone voice.
Karim Batkhish, a resident of the town of Masaada, is quoted as saying:
“The war in Syria is irrelevant to us. Some may say they support [Syrian
President Bashar] Assad but it’s a lie to show Syria we’re with them.
They’re lying, no one wants to see Syria here.”
That kind of matches the 'Palestinian' experience under '
occupation' in Jerusalem, doesn't it?
You don't think the UN would lie, do you?
Labels: Druze, Golan Heights, Jerusalem, Majdal Shams, occupation, United Nations
Will the UN be next?
I can't help but wonder what would happen if membership in the United Nations were brought to a democratic vote in its member countries. Here's some (prescient?)
thoughts on that question by Judi McLeod in the Canadian Free Press (well, at least for now it's free, but the Trudeau government might have something to say about that).
“Today,
the sun has risen on an independent Britain, and look at it, even the
weather has improved,” announced Nigel Farage from the steps of
Westminster after the result was confirmed.
And the sun, which replaces the artificial
one on Obama’s logo, is rising in America too. Obama, who likely has
the leadership of the UN in his sights with the end of his term in
January 2017, was all but totally ignored by pro-Brexit voters.
...
Obama and his teleprompter can’t possibly walk back the unasked for
advice he pushed on British voters to “stay” warning them they would be
at the “back of the queue” in trade with the U.S.
The toffs at the
EU, mostly unknown by the people they profess to serve, but who are
lavishly paid, may rule the roost in other European countries, but after
today’s vote of the people—no more in England.
The UN, which has the same unearned status from its ever sprawling headquarters in Manhattan, should be feeling the chill.
Shout it from the rooftops: The status quo was historically toppled for independence in Britain.
If it can happen there, it can happen in America.
In Israel, where we have systematically ignored the UN for as long as anyone can remember, voters may be too afraid to withdraw from it. After all, we are the lone sheep among all the lions, and we are still a small country, who can be hurt by the nations of the world in other ways, even if the UN's obsession with the 'Palestinians' also hurts us.
But the United States? That might be a different story.
I'm in Boston for those who have forgotten, and that's why I'm posting after Shabbat started in Israel. In case I don't get to post again, Shabbat Shalom to all of you.
Labels: Brexit, European Union, United Nations
Image: Obama's UN job interview
On Monday, I reported that President Hussein Obama wants to be
Secretary General of the United Nations. I can now post this image of his job interview (Hat Tip:
Jack W).
Heh.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, humor, United Nations
Obama wants to be UN Secretary General, Netanyahu determined to stop him
US President Hussein Obama doesn't want to go off into the sunset in January 2017. He wants to become Secretary General of the United Nations. And Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is
determined to stop him (Hat Tip:
Fox Nation).
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly is planning payback for President Obama’s dismissing Mr. Netanyahu’s objections to the Iran nuclear deal last year. Mr. Netanyahu
is said to be rallying moderate Arabs to thwart Mr. Obama’s bid to
become the Secretary-General of the United Nations after he leaves the
White House next year.
Mr. Obama has already discussed the issue
with Republican, Democratic and Jewish officials in the United States,
according to Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.
Mr. Netanyahu
recently is said to have gotten wind of Obama’s plans which he calls
the Obama Project. “Wasn’t eight years of having Obama in office
enough?” Mr. Netanyahu is quoted in the Kuwaiti daily as telling associates. “Eight years during which he ignored Israel? And now he wants to be in a position that is liable to cause us hardships in the international arena.”
Actually, the problem isn't that he ignored us - the problem is that he is obsessed with us.
But what's really interesting is that Netanyahu is enlisting the 'moderate' Arab states to help block the leader of the 'most pro-Israel administration evah.'
“Obama is the worst president Israel has had to deal with and the worst president for the Middle East and its allies, the moderate Arab states,” the paper quotes a Netanyahu aide.
Another
source close to the Prime Minister said “his presidency was
characterized by [Washington’s] moving closer to the Muslim Brotherhood,
toppling the regime of Hosni Mubarak, and attempts to ally itself with
political Islam.”
“Obama’s term is ending with him forging an alliance with Iran,
coming to an agreement with it on its nuclear program which in the end
will result in a similar scenario that took place with North Korea. Israel will not allow this to happen … It will take all of the necessary steps to prevent Iran from manufacturing a nuclear weapon either covertly or overtly.”
And you were wondering how Netanyahu really feels about Obama?
Does this mean that we can expect an Israeli attack on Iran once Obama is out of office? Hmmm.
In case you were wondering about the timing of this perfect storm,
Townhall adds:
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's term expires in early 2017, making
Obama’s bid for the position a possibility. Last year after his speech
at West Point, some pointed out that he sounded an awful lot like he was campaigning for the role.
Hmmm.
Labels: Ban Ki-Moon, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iranian nuclear threat, moderates, Muslim Brotherhood, United Nations
US continues to donate $400MM annually to UNRWA and $5 billion to the 'Palestinian Authority'
Andrew McCarthy reports that despite its $18 trillion in debt, the United States continues to contribute
$400 million annually to UNRWA and $5 billion to the 'Palestinian Authority' (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
A watchdog group, UN Watch, reports that staffers at a major United
Nations agency with a long history of encouraging Palestinian terrorism,
the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), is inciting the latest spate of attacks in Israel. From the UN Watch press release:
UN staffers are using the imprimatur of their official positions to incite Palestinian stabbing and shooting attacks against Israeli Jews, with one UN-identified employee calling on Facebook to “stab Zionist dogs,” according to a new report issued today by UN Watch, the Geneva-based non-governmental organization that is accredited by the United Nations with the mandate to monitor the world body’s compliance with its charter.
UN Watch submitted the report today to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, UNRWA chief Pierre Krähenbühl, and U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power, whose government’s $400 million annual grant makes it the largest funder of UNRWA.
“The UN and top funders of UNRWA such as the United States government must act immediately to terminate employees who are inciting murderous anti-Semitism and fueling the deadly pandemic of Palestinian attacks against Israeli Jews that have claimed innocent men, women and children, aged 13 to 78,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.
“Despite UNRWA’s promise, in the wake of our previous report, to take action and dismiss UNRWA perpetrators of incitement, there has been no accountability whatsoever,” said Neuer. “On the contrary, UNRWA’s main response has been to try and intimidate UN Watch.”…
Although we are over $18 trillion in debt (officially, with the unofficial total many times higher), the U.S. government not only redistributes $400 million a year to support the UNRWA’s promotion of terrorism; our government also redistributes a staggering $5 billion per annum to Palestinians: the people carrying out the yet another intifada, the people who elected Hamas – a formally designated terrorist organization under American law – to govern Gaza, and the people whose U.S.-supported Palestinian Authority has voluntarily formed a unity government with Hamas.
I can think of one place where the next President of the United States can look to cut the budget. But will s/he?
Labels: Palestinian incitement, Palestinian terrorism, United Nations, United Nations budget, United Nations Watch, UNRWA
How the Senate made it almost impossible to vote down the Iranian nuke agreement
The United States constitution provides that treaties may only be adopted with the advice and consent of
two thirds of the United States Senate.
Three months ago, the Senate adopted a bill that was negotiated with President Obama that abdicated that right of approval. In essence, under Corker-Menendez, Obama has the right to present his surrender to Iranian nuclear weapons to the Senate not as a treaty, but as an agreement. And if the Senate says no, Obama has the right to veto that no. Unless the Senate comes up with
67 votes to override that veto, the agreement with Iran will stand. That means that 34 votes to sustain Obama's veto are enough for the agreement to go through.
There are
44 Democratic Senators in the current Senate, plus an additional two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. In order to override an Obama veto, 13 of those Democrats and Independents must vote against Obama.
Does anyone really think that's going to happen?
Go back and read
this post from three months ago. It's astounding.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, P 5+1, United Nations, United States Congress, United States Senate, uranium enrichment
Israeli report on Gaza operation shows something UN report won't
The government of Israel has released a 277-page report on its investigation into last summer's Operation Protective Edge today, the same day that the United Nations is releasing its report. What does the Israeli report have that the United Nations report doesn't? Here's one example:
Labels: anti-Israel bias, anti-Israel obsession, Gaza, human shields, IDF, Islamic terrorism, Muslim schools, Operation Protective Edge, United Nations, UNRWA
No, @BarakRavid, the United Nations did not condemn rocket fire on Israel
Haaretz's @BarakRavid has criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu for taking note before Sunday morning's cabinet meeting of the lack of United Nations condemnation of rocket fire on Israel (including Saturday night).
But if you follow the link Ravid provides, you discover that it wasn't the United Nations that condemned the rocket fire, but rather UN Secretary General
Ban Ki-Moon. And even that 'condemnation' created a moral equivalence between terrorist rocket fire and Israeli self-defense.
The Secretary-General condemns the firing of rockets by militants from
Gaza towards Israel on 3 June. He calls on all parties to avoid further
escalation and prevent incidents that jeopardise the lives of Israeli
and Palestinian civilians.
A real condemnation would be issued by the Security Council and would call for action only by the party doing the attacking. This was not a real condemnation. That's why Prime Minister Netanyahu is correct in asserting.
But of course then they will be condemning Israel.
Labels: Ban Ki-Moon, Binyamin Netanyahu, Gaza, Hamas rockets, Palestinian terrorism, United Nations, United Nations Security Council
At 'pleasant, cooperative' meeting Jewish group urges Obama to remove UN backing for Israel
There was a second meeting of Jews with President Hussein Obama at the White House this week. The meeting was led by supporters of J Street, the organization for anti-Israel JINO's. In an atmosphere described as 'pleasant and cooperative,' the group urged President Obama to
stop protecting Israel at the United Nations.
The exchange took place in the second of two meetings Obama held with
American Jewish leaders to discuss the current negotiations with Iran
over its nuclear program, as well as other regional issues. According to
a source who was in the room, one J Street supporter told the president
that if he decided to back a Palestinian state resolution over Israeli
objections, “let us know first, and we’ll do the legwork for you, in the
community… so you’re not going to come in cold.” Among the J Street
supporters who were part of the delegation meeting with Obama were
Alexandra Stanton, Lou Susman and Victor Kovner.
The atmosphere at that second meeting was described as pleasant and
cooperative, in marked contrast to the first meeting, described by one
source as “ungiving, very stern and tense.”
The Algemeiner spoke to four individuals who attended the
meetings, as well as one other who did not attend, but was extensively
briefed on what was said. All of the sources declined to be named for
this report, as they were not authorized by the Administration to speak
on the record.
The discussions totaled approximately two hours and forty minutes and
were likely the most significant ones between the two sides since the
start of the Obama presidency. “For sure this was the most important”
one prominent Jewish leader stated, “because it was about Iran.”
The President was only at the first meeting for about an hour and ten minutes.
Regarding the first meeting, at which senior representatives of
groups like the World Jewish Congress, the Conference of Presidents and
the Anti-Defamation League were present, one source said the
conversation was “difficult” and “depressing.” The source added that
“nobody was breaking ground, they were at cross purposes.” An attendee
who spoke with JTA described the gathering as “intense” and said, “There
was an openheartedness, there were some deep reflections by the
president.” Other participants who spoke with JTA used the term
“therapeutic” to describe the tone of the talks.
...
The second meeting, which was largely stacked with Obama allies, “was
very pleasant,” according to one of the guests. It was “all his
friends,” the guest said. As well as J Street supporters, others present
included Haim Saban, the Israeli-American entertainment mogul who has
been critical of Obama’s Middle East policies, and Democratic donors
associated with AIPAC, including past presidents Amy Friedkin and Howard
Friedman
Obama presented himself as thinking “like an ultra-liberal Jew” and conveyed the “J Street mantra,” according to the source.
Although some pointed questions were asked, Obama faced far less
resistance, and was even encouraged to take steps against Israel and
remain steadfast in his approach to Iran negotiations.
According to the source, one “J Streeter” pushed Obama to remove the
American veto protection of Israel at the UN in the event that a
Security Council resolution called for the creation of a Palestinian
State.
The individual “said if you decide to go against Israel at the UN,
‘let us know first, and we’ll do the legwork for you, in the community…
so you’re not going to come in cold…’ and they pushed him to do it,” the
participant told The Algemeiner. “Another major Jewish leader…
not J Street, more centrist, but he wants to cosy up to Obama, says
[regarding Iran] ‘you are doing the right thing, we are behind you 100
percent’.”
Jewish support for Obama has dropped 23% since 2009. One can only wonder how many American Jews would have supported the likes of Hitler and Khomeni had they been given the chance.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, J Street, P 5+1, pro-Israel pro-peace, United Nations, United Nations Security Council, US veto
Report: Obama covered up N. Korea missile component transfers to Iran during nuke talks
The Washington Free Beacon reports that North Korea transferred advanced missile components to Iran while the P 5+1 talks with Iran were ongoing - and that President Hussein
Obama hid that fact from the United Nations (Hat Tip:
Gershon D).
Since September more than two shipments of missile parts have been
monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies as they transited from North
Korea to Iran, said officials familiar with intelligence reports who
spoke on condition of anonymity.
Details of the arms shipments were included in President Obama’s
daily intelligence briefings and officials suggested information about
the transfers was kept secret from the United Nations, which is in
charge of monitoring sanctions violations.
...
CIA spokesman Ryan Trapani declined to comment on the missile
component shipments, citing a policy of not discussing classified
information.
But other officials said the transfers included goods covered by the
Missile Technology Control Regime, a voluntary agreement among 34
nations that limits transfers of missiles and components of systems with
ranges of greater than 186 miles.
One official said the transfers between North Korea and Iran included
large diameter engines, which could be used for a future Iranian
long-range missile system.
The United Nations Security Council in June 2010 imposed sanctions on
Iran for its illegal uranium enrichment program. The sanctions prohibit
Iran from purchasing ballistic missile goods and are aimed at blocking
Iran from acquiring “technology related to ballistic missiles capable of
delivering nuclear weapons.”
U.S. officials said the transfers carried out since September appear to be covered by the sanctions.
Other details of the transfers could not be learned. However, U.S.
intelligence agencies in the past have identified Iran’s Islamic
Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) as the main shipper involved in transferring ballistic missile-related materials.
...
A classified State Department cable from October 2009 reveals that Iran is one of North Korea’s key missile customers.
The cable, made public by Wikileaks, states that since the 1980s
North Korea has provided Iran with complete Scud missiles and production
technology used in developing 620-mile-range Nodong missiles.
Additionally, North Korea also supplied Iran with a medium-range
missile called the BM-25 that is a variant of the North Korean Musudan
missile.
“This technology would provide Iran with more advanced missile
technology than currently used in its Shahab-series of ballistic
missiles and could form the basis for future Iranian missile and [space
launch vehicle] designs.”
“Pyongyang’s assistance to Iran’s [space launch vehicle] program
suggests that North Korea and Iran may also be cooperating on the
development of long-range ballistic missiles.”
A second cable
from September 2009 states that Iran’s Safir rocket uses missile
steering engines likely provided by North Korea that are based on
Soviet-era SS-N-6 submarine launched ballistic missiles.
That technology transfer was significant because it has allowed Iran
to develop a self-igniting missile propellant that the cable said “could
significantly enhance Tehran’s ability to develop a new generation of
more-advanced ballistic missiles.”
“All of these technologies, demonstrated in the Safir [space launch
vehicle] are critical to the development of long-range ballistic
missiles and highlight the possibility of Iran using the Safir as a
platform to further its ballistic missile development.”
A spokesman for Spain’s mission to the United Nations, currently in
charge of the world body’s sanctions committee, said the committee has
not received any communications from the United States since Spain took
charge of the panel in January.
If you're waiting for a White House or State Department denial, don't hold your breath.
White House National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan
declined to comment. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf did not
return emails seeking comment.
If you're still wondering whose side President Obama is on, or whether he's seeking to arm Iran with nuclear weapons, I don't think you have to wonder anymore.
High crimes and misdemeanors, anyone?
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, intercontinental ballistic missiles, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian missiles, Iranian nuclear threat, North Korea, P 5+1, United Nations
Corker-Menendez passes Senate Foreign Relations Committee 19-0, but it's not all it's cracked up to be
By a 19-0 vote, the Corker-Menendez bill giving Congress a vote on a nuclear deal with Iran
passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday afternoon, and now there are even indications that
President Hussein Obama will sign the bill (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum). However, conservatives argue that Obama will
still have free reign over what happens with a deal with Iran, and some are even
calling Corker a traitor. This is from the first link.
The panel voted 19-0 to approve
legislation worked out between Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn.,
and Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, who took over as ranking Democrat after
Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey was indicted on federal corruption
charges. Menendez was co-author of the legislation with Corker.
The deal shortened the congressional review period for any agreement
from 60 days to 30 days and eliminated a requirement that the president
periodically certify that Iran is keeping to the terms of any agreement
and "has not directly supported or carried out an act of terrorism
against the United States, or a United States person anywhere in the
world."
That provision was replaced by one
requiring periodic reporting on Iran's support of terrorism. Another
provision aimed at soothing Republican concerns would require the
president to certify that any deal would not harm Israel's security,
replacing a bid by some GOP members to require Iran to accept the Jewish
state's right to exist as part of any agreement.
The compromise makes clear that Obama can waive U.S. sanctions if Congress approves a nuclear deal or if it fails to act.
The Wall Street Journal points out that the nuclear deal is still
Obama's one-man deal - he will continue to have free reign over it.
As late as Tuesday morning, Secretary of State John Kerry
was still railing in private against the bill. But the White House
finally conceded when passage with a veto-proof majority seemed
inevitable. The bill will now pass easily on the floor, and if Mr.
Obama’s follows his form, he will soon talk about the bill as if it was
his idea.
Mr. Obama can still do whatever he wants on Iran as
long as he maintains Democratic support. A majority could offer a
resolution of disapproval, but that could be filibustered by Democrats
and vetoed by the President. As few as 41 Senate Democrats could thus
vote to prevent it from ever getting to President Obama’s desk—and 34
could sustain a veto. Mr. Obama could then declare that Congress had its
say and “approved” the Iran deal even if a majority in the House and
Senate voted to oppose it.
My friend Noah Pollak is disappointed.
And the
Tea Partiers are furious.
Traitor is strong language, but in the aftermath of Tuesday’s vote on
a bill that was supposed to reaffirm the Senate’s constitutional power
to consent to President Obama’s as yet still undefined and undisclosed
nuclear treaty with Iran there is no other way to describe the actions
of Senator Bob Corker, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations
The bill Corker rammed through the Foreign Relations Committee is worse than no bill at all.
What Corker’s bill does is, in its post-markup form, require the
president to submit for congressional review the final nuclear agreement
reached between Iran, the U.S. and its five negotiating partners. The
bill does maintain the prohibition on the president waiving
congressionally enacted sanctions against Iran during the review period.
However, the review period in the measure has been shortened from 60
days to an initial 30 days. If, at the end of the 30 days, Congress were
to pass a bill on sanctions relief and send it to the president, an
additional 12 days would be automatically added to the review period.
This could be another 10 days of review if the president vetoed the
resulting sanctions bill.
Corker’s legislation in effect lowers the threshold for approving the
Iran deal from 67 votes to 41 – a craven betrayed of the Senate’s
constitutional role as the final word on whether or not the United
States agrees to a treaty.
...
More importantly, Corker betrayed American interests and the
interests of our allies in the greater Middle East; from Israel, to
Saudi Arabia, to India no nation now within the range of Iran’s fast
growing missile technology is secure from the threat of a nuclear armed
Islamist Iran.
And make no mistake – it is the combination of Iran’s expansionist Islamism and nuclear weapons technology that is the threat.
...
The “growing support” for Senator Corker’s information, was not for
him to cave-in to Obama, but for the Senate to exercise its real
constitutional role in the approval – or disapproval – of Obama’s treaty
to legitimize Iran’s nuclear weapons program. And that means “advice”
while the treaty is negotiated and “consent” after the President
concludes the agreement.
Bob Corker has betrayed that constitutional principle and the world
will be a much more dangerous place for his inexplicable failure to
grasp the existential threat a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran
poses to the United States and in that willful blindness he has in
effect betrayed all peoples who share the values of freedom of
conscience, freedom of religion and freedom of speech and will be
threatened by a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran.
The Wall Street Journal argues that Corker had no choice.
Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker
deserves credit for trying, but in the end he had to agree to
Democratic changes watering down the measure if he wanted 67 votes to
override an Obama veto. Twice the Tennessee Republican delayed a vote in
deference to Democrats, though his bill merely requires a vote after the negotiations are over.
It also has a more nuanced take on what ought to happen.
Our own view of all this is closer to that of Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson,
who spoke for (but didn’t offer) an amendment in committee Tuesday to
require that Mr. Obama submit the Iran nuclear deal as a treaty. Under
the Constitution, ratification would require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the Senate.
Committing
the U.S. to a deal of this magnitude—concerning proliferation of the
world’s most destructive weapons—should require treaty ratification.
Previous Presidents from JFK to Nixon to Reagan and George H.W. Bush submitted nuclear pacts as treaties. Even Mr. Obama submitted the U.S.-Russian New Start accord as a treaty.
The
Founders required two-thirds approval on treaties because they wanted
major national commitments overseas to have a national political
consensus. Mr. Obama should want the same kind of consensus on Iran.
But
instead he is giving more authority over American commitments to the
United Nations than to the U.S. Congress. By making the accord an
executive agreement as opposed to a treaty, and perhaps relying on a
filibuster or veto to overcome Congressional opposition, he’s turning
the deal into a one-man presidential compact with Iran. This will make
it vulnerable to being rejected by the next President, as some of the
GOP candidates are already promising.
The case for the Corker
bill is that at least it guarantees some debate and a vote in Congress
on an Iran deal. Mr. Obama can probably do what he wants anyway, but the
Iranians are on notice that the United States isn’t run by a single
Supreme Leader.
Well yes, unless the next President is - God Forbid - Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren.
The Tea Party also has criticism of other Senators.
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), at the request of Corker, agreed to
withdraw an amendment to provide compensation for American victims of
the 1979 Iran hostage crisis from fees collected for violations of Iran
sanctions.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who planned to introduce an amendment that
would have required the president to certify to Congress that Iran
recognizes the state of Israel, wilted and settled for language
asserting that the nuclear agreement would not compromise U.S. support
for Israel’s right to exist.
Affirmation of Israel's right to exist is of course is a foundational
principle of American foreign policy that was never questioned until
Obama became president and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill became not
so much the leaders of an opposition party, as a collection of craven
cowards who wish only to avoid the unpleasantness actually having
principles and standing for them would entail.
No, it wasn't questioned. And it's high time the questioning should stop. How many days until Obama's term ends?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Marco Rubio, P 5+1, United Nations, United States Congress, United States Senate, uranium enrichment
Obama says there won't be a 'peace agreement,' blames Netanyahu, will try to force creation of a 'Palestinian state'
Barack Hussein Obama has acknowledged the 'reality' that there won't be a 'peace agreement' during his term in office, and has decided instead to attempt to force the creation of a 'Palestinian state' through the United Nations. For all of this he
blames Binyamin Netanyahu.
In a stark assessment of U.S.-Israel relations,
Mr. Obama, speaking at a news
conference, put a firm end to one of the
top foreign-policy goals of his second term: a Middle East peace deal that
includes the creation a Palestinian state.
“What we can’t do is pretend that there’s a
possibility for something that’s not there,” Mr. Obama said. “And we can’t
continue to premise our public diplomacy based on something that everybody knows
is not going to happen at least in the next several years.”
He added, “For the sake of our own credibility I
think we have to be able to be honest about that.”
...
Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu are deeply divided
over nuclear talks with Iran, an issue likely to resurface as the next deadline
in negotiations arrives next week. The two leaders have long disliked each
other, but Mr. Obama played down the notion that personal discord was motivating
his policy decisions.
“The issue is not a matter of relations between
leaders. The issue is a very clear substantive challenge: We believe that two
states is the best path forward for Israel’s security, for Palestinian
aspirations, and for regional stability,” Mr. Obama said. “And Prime Minister
Netanyahu has a different approach.”
The president said the U.S. is considering
alternatives to Israeli-Palestinian talks, including taking action at the United
Nations that would afford Palestinians statehood.
Most pro-Israel administration evah? Really? Is this what we can expect next? Now that the US has left Iraq to Islamic State and Afghanistan to the Taliban, they have the troops available.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, fierce moral urgency, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Samantha Power, two-state solution, United Nations
Why the Schabas Report will be every bit as biased as the Goldstone Report
Until he was
forced out a month ago when it was discovered that he had worked for the PLO, William Schabas
headed the United Nations 'human rights council's commission of inquiry into Israel's summer 2014 Operation Protective Edge. The UN has tried arguing that Schabas' resignation means the report won't be biased. That's nonsense. But not for the reason you think. In a lengthy article published by the Tower, Hillel Neuer explains how
Richard Goldstone was duped when he headed the Commission of Inquiry into Operation Cast Lead in 2009, and how as much as Schabas was anti-Israel, his presence or absence on the Commission likely made little difference.
There seems no question that Goldstone was duped. He never suspected
that OHCHR, the UN agency in charge of providing him with professional
staff support, had quietly embedded one of the world’s top anti-Israel
lawfare strategists into the team. After all, only four years before,
Goldstone had worked on another UN inquiry on the oil-for-food program.
In that case, he was supported by a highly professional staff based in
New York, with most if not all of them lawyers and experts hired from
the outside. Goldstone assumed the Gaza inquiry would be the same.
But it was not the same. The culture of the Geneva-based OHCHR
secretariat is known to be far more anti-American, anti-colonial, and
anti-Israel than the one in New York. In his naiveté, Goldstone was
blind to the prejudice and political agenda of his own bureaucracy.
Indeed, there is not the slightest indication that Goldstone had any
knowledge of Baars’ extremist activism. But OHCHR knew—and that is why
they hired her.
On March 23, what for six months was the Schabas Commission, and now
in its final and seventh month has become the McGowan Davis Commission,
will present its report to the Human Rights Council. Do we have any
reason to expect a fair, objective, and credible report?
Not if we consider the built-in prejudice of the commission’s
founding mandate, spelled out in resolution S-21/1 of July 23, 2014,
which preemptively declares Israel guilty. It condemns the Jewish state
“in the strongest terms,” citing “widespread, systematic, and gross
violations of international human rights,” “the targeting of civilians
and civilian properties” as a form of “collective punishment contrary to
international law,” “disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks,”
“grave violations of the human rights of the Palestinian civilian
population,” and “military aggressions.” The resolution mentions Israel
18 times. Hamas is not mentioned once.
Not if we consider that Schabas, the activist chairman who says
that he “devoted several months of work” to the project, is someone who
performed undisclosed paid legal work for the PLO—on the subject of how
to prosecute Israelis in international courts—and who famously declared
barely three years ago that the leader he most wants to see in the dock
at the International Criminal Court is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu.
And—as the cautionary tale of lawfare general Grietje Baars as the
key author of the original Goldstone Report makes clear—not if we
consider the outsized role played by OHCHR in compiling the evidence,
processing submissions, and picking the people to draft the report’s
chapters and conclusions. Everything we now know about how OHCHR
engineered the travesty of the original Goldstone Report indicates that
Goldstone II will suffer the same politically-motivated fate.
Read the whole thing. The woman whose picture is at the top of this post is Grietje Baars, whose name you probably never heard until today.
Labels: Gaza, Goldstone Report, IDF, Operation Protective Edge, Richard Goldstone, United Nations, United Nations Human Rights Council, United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, William Schabas
Head of UN's Operation Protective Edge probe resigns
In yet another disgrace for the United Nations,
William Schabas, the head of the United Nations panel probing this past summer's Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, has
resigned as head of the panel, in effect admitting the veracity of Israeli allegations that he is biased against the Jewish state.
In a letter to the commission, a copy of which was seen by Reuters,
Schabas said he would step down immediately to prevent the issue from
overshadowing the preparation of the report and its findings, which are
due to be published in March.
Schabas' departure highlights the sensitivity of the UN investigation
just weeks after prosecutors at the International Criminal Court in The
Hague said they had started a preliminary inquiry into alleged
atrocities in the Palestinian territories.
In the letter, Schabas said a legal opinion he
wrote for the Palestine Liberation Organization in 2012, for which he
was paid $1,300, was not different from advice he had given to many
other governments and organizations.
"My views on Israel and Palestine as well as on
many other issues were well known and very public," he wrote. "This work
in defense of human rights appears to have made me a huge target for malicious attacks (...)."
Indeed, his views on Israel and the 'Palestinians'
were well known, which is exactly why he should not have been chosen to head this panel in the first place.
But what the UN is trying to do by having Schabas resign is beyond disgraceful: Schabas has already completed the 'fact-finding,' which means that the report has effectively been written. Schabas' bias will seep throughout the report, because he determined what 'facts' would be included in the report. But now Schabas can deny responsibility for the report itself, because after all he's not writing the final version.
Isn't the 'international community' great?
Labels: Gaza, IDF, Operation Protective Edge, United Nations, United Nations Human Rights Council, William Schabas
'A tectonic change in the country's foreign policy'
The tweet at the top of this post came from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In this Hebrew-language tweet, he wishes the Jewish people a happy Chanuka and expresses his hope that this holiday and this period will bring peace, hope and prosperity to all.
Modi and his government are also beginning to put actions behind their words. On Monday, it was reported that India will no longer back the 'Palestinians' at the United Nations. They apparently don't dare to vote with us yet, but they say
that they will abstain.
In what could amount to a tectonic shift in the country’s foreign
policy, the Modi government is looking at altering India’s supporting
vote for the Palestinian cause at the United Nations to one of
abstention.
Two sources within the government confirmed to The Hindu that the
change, which will be a fundamental departure from India’s support to
the cause of a Palestinian state, was under consideration.
“Like other foreign policy issues, the Modi government is looking at
India’s voting record at the United Nations on the Palestinian issue,” a
government source told The Hindu. The change only needs an
administrative nod, the second source said.
Despite the growing defence and diplomatic ties with Israel, the UPA
government, which junked traditional ally Iran to vote with the United
States at the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005, had baulked at
making any change in India’s support to the Palestinians.
Even former Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee’s government, which invited
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to India in 2003, did not amend
India’s voting record at the U.N.
I'd like to see them go all the way and vote with us, but this is a start.
Labels: India, Shri Narendra Modi, United Nations
