This is going to be fun: US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley rips the Security Council's Israel obsession
Here's US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley telling the press about her first Security Council meeting - and she specifically mentions the shameful US abstention (and worse) on Security Council Resolution 2334 during the last days of the Obama administration.
Let's go to the videotape.
For those on the Left who are wondering why you lost the recent US election, you might want to start here.
On the Senate floor: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) slams Obama's abandonment of Israel in the UN
This one is especially good - it's Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) slamming President Hussein Obama on the Senate floor for what Obama did to Israel in the UN two weeks ago.
Netanyahu thanks Congress for slapping Obama in the face
Shavua tov everyone.
On Friday afternoon, just before the Sabbath started, Prime Minister Netanyahu released a video thanking Congress for slapping President Obama in the face. No, Obama's name isn't mentioned, but it's pretty obvious. He thanked Congress for reflecting the will of the American people.
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.
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."
#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.
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.
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' negotiatorbottle washer Saeb Erekat. That led to this denial from US National Security Council spokesman Ned Price:
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.
If you are Jewish and supporting Barack Obama and John Kerry, well, you would have made a fine helper at Auschwitz.
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-colonialistcreation 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.
Dermer to CNN: Israel will present evidence of Obama's UN gambit to Trump administration
Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, told CNN on Monday that Israel has evidence that President Hussein Obama orchestrated the presentation and passage of Security Council Resolution 2334, condemning as 'illegal' Israeli 'settlement' in Judea, Samaria and 'east' Jerusalem. Dermer said that Israel will present the evidence to the Trump administration after January 20, and leave it up to Trump whether to share it with the American people (Hat Tip: MFS - The Other News). I would bet on it being shared if it's solid enough.
Israel has evidence that U.S. President Obama's administration is behind Friday's Security Council resolution, Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer told CNN on Monday.
"We will present this evidence to the new administration through the appropriate channels. If they want to share it with the American people they are welcome to do it," Dermer told CNN.
According to Dermer, not only did the U.S. not stand by Israel's side during the vote, it "was behind this ganging up on Israel at the UN." Dermer said it was "a sad day and a shameful chapter in U.S.-Israeli relations."
In his first public reaction to the vote, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Saturday that the Obama administration has carried out an underhanded and an anti-Israel maneuver at the UN Security Council.
Joe Biden gets his revenge on Netanyahu by forcing Ukraine to vote against Israel
YNet is reporting that serial groper Joe Biden got his revenge for being 'humiliated' by Prime Minister Netanyahu six years ago by pressuring Ukraine to vote in favor of a Security Council resolution calling Israeli 'settlements' 'illegal' on Friday.
Ukraine’s decision to vote in favor of the resolution appears to
demonstrate the extent to which US President Barack Obama was behind the
decision.
According to officials in Israel, Ukrainian Prime Minister
Volodymyr Groysman, a Jew who is thought of as one of Israel’s main
supporters, wanted that his country not be involved in the consultations
held on the resolution.
However, Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko decided to vote in
favor of its passage following a telephone conversation with US Vice
President Joe Biden.
"The text of the resolution is balanced," Kiev asserted. "It
calls for taking measures necessary for peaceful solution from both
Israeli and Palestinian sides: Israel should stop its settlement
activities while Palestinian authorities – to take effective measures
toward fighting against terrorism."
"Our country consistently advocates the respect for the
international law by everyone and everywhere as has experienced itself
the tragic consequences brought by its violation," the Ukrainian Foreign
Ministry added.
Perhaps this is why one of the first places in which the Netanyahu government has announced that it will build in response to the United Nations is the scene of Biden's 'humiliation,' RamatShlomo.
As Israel seeks help from Trump, Netanyahu spox accuses Obama of orchestrating UN resolution
A spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu with what's described as 'ironclad intelligence' is accusing the Obama administration of orchestrating the introduction and passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 on Friday.
Speaking to Fox News on Sunday, David Keyes said Arab sources, among others, had informed Jerusalem of Obama’s alleged involvement in advancing the resolution.
“We have rather ironclad information from
sources in both the Arab world and internationally that this was a
deliberate push by the United States and in fact they helped create the
resolution in the first place,” Keyes told the US media outlet.
The White House has adamantly denied “cooking up” the resolution, rejecting accusations by Netanyahu to that effect.
“We did not draft this resolution; we did not
introduce this resolution. we made this decision when it came up for a
vote,” said Obama’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes on
Friday. But because of its opposition to settlement activity and concern
for what it could mean for the region, the US “could not in good
conscience veto,” he added.
I'd believe just about anyone before I'd believe BenRhodes.
Netanyahu is now reaching out to the incoming Trump administration,
which takes office on January 20, and to friends in Congress, in the
hope of “deterring” what he sees as further potential Obama
administration-led diplomatic action against Israel, the Channel 2
report said. His aim is for the Trump team to make plain that his
administration will “economically hurt” those countries that voted
against Israel in the UN and that do so in the future.
Netanyahu’s fear is that Secretary of State John Kerry will set out
principles or parameters for a Palestinian state in a speech that he has said he will deliver in
the next few days on his Middle East vision. The prime minister fears
that, in its final days, the Obama administration will seek to have a
resolution enshrining those parameters adopted by the UN Security
Council, the report said.
There are three questions here. First, can Trump deter other nations from cooperating with Obama by threatening them economically? Second, is he willing to use that power if he has it? And third, what price will Israel have to pay in order to get to Trump to act?
In the meantime, hundreds of Syrians are dying daily on Obama's watch, but hey, no Jews involved so what difference does it make?
Oh and by the way, as bad as this situation is, can you imagine how much worse it would be if the President elect were Hillary Clinton?
Deja vu all over again: Obama not the first President to attempt to hurt Israel in his final days
Barack Hussein Obama is not the first US President to try to use the United Nations to hurt Israel in his final days in office. That 'honor' goes to Obama's ideological mate, Jimmy Carter. In this Washington Post editorial from December 21, 1980 (Hat Tip: Mark Dubowitz) (would they publish it today?), if you replace Carter with Obama, the result is uncanny.
THE AMERICAN vote against Israel in the Security Council Friday was,
in a sense, the essential Carter. There was no good reason of state for
the United States to reverse its previous refusal (twice to condemn
Israel for expelling two West Bank mayors -- not least because a change
would mark its previous votes as politically motivated. Moreover, the
issue of the mayors, who are indeed their people's authentic
representatives but are also spokesmen for violence, is more complicated
than any U.N. majority -- and certainly Secretary General Kurt
Waldheim, who immediately offered the mayors the comforts of the house
for a hunger strike -- could be expected to grasp. Yet the
administration condemned Israel. It evidently did so out of a familiar
impulse to be at one with the virtuous souls of the Third World,
notwithstanding the complexities of the larger issue at hand.
That
issue is whether friends should be treated differently from
enemies.It's a tough one. That is, it's a tough one for the United
States and especially for the Carter administration. No other country --
no other president -- has so indulged the luxury of deciding whether to
support friends on all occasions regardless of their failings or
whether to apply ostensibly universal values and condemn them in
particular cases when they are deemed to fall short. It would be truly
regrettable if the United States followed the pack and decided every
case on political grounds alone. At the same time, it cannot be denied
that there is a pack and that it hounds Israel shamelessly and that this
makes it very serious when the United States joins it. Jimmy Carter has
regularly anguished on this score. This time, in perhaps his last U.N.
act of consequence, there was a suggestion in the air that he was
finally doing what in his heart he has always wanted to do: vote for
what he regarded as virtue.
To whatever effect, Ronald Reagan will do it differently.
May God obliterate both Carter's and Obama's names and memories. ימח שמם וזכרם of these evil people. And may Obama's efforts have even less effect than Carter's had.
Obama's hatred of Israel isn't just personal animus against Netanyahu
When Barack Hussein Obama ordered his UN ambassador to abstain in Friday's vote against the 'settlements' at the United Nations, it wasn't just personal animus against Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Mr. Obama’s animus toward Prime Minister Netanyahu is well known.
Apparently Mr. Obama took it as an affront that the President-elect
would express an opinion about this week’s U.N. resolution.
It
is important, though, to see this U.S. abstention as more significant
than merely Mr. Obama’s petulance. What it reveals clearly is the Obama
Administration’s animus against the state of Israel itself. No longer
needing Jewish votes, Mr. Obama was free, finally, to punish the Jewish
state in a way no previous President has done.
What Obama did on Friday went against the views of the vast majority of the US Congress, the vast majority of the American people, and of course, the vast majority of Israelis - including the sane part of the Israeli Left.
I call upon the Obama administration to veto this resolution against Israel at the UNSC.>>
For those who speak Hebrew, there's a video of Lapid blasting the resolution on Saturday here.
What Obama did on Friday will permanently cloud the possibility of any kind of peace. This is from the first link, a Wall Street Journal editorial.
No effort to rescind the resolution, which calls the settlements a
violation of “international law,” will succeed because of Russia’s and
China’s vetoes.
Instead, the resolution will live on as Barack
Obama’s cat’s paw, offering support in every European capital,
international institution and U.S. university campus to bully Israel
with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
Here in Israel, there's a palpable fear that the mamzer in the White House isn't done 'punishing' us yet.
At the cabinet meeting yesterday the experts on foreign affairs
presented a scenario in which Obama could even on his last day in office
cause harm to Israel.
The concern is that Obama may promote a move in the UN Security
Council giving guidelines for a peace agreement between Israel and the
Palestinians and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Israel would
find it hard to present an alternative model after these guidelines are
set.
The experts on foreign affairs also posed another concern regarding
the Paris conference which is supposed to take place during the course
of February. At the conference a pro-Palestinian peace initiative may be
presented and could be viewed as authoritative if it is adopted.
I'm less concerned about what could happen in February - when Donald Trump is President - than I am about what could happen in the next three weeks.
Obama has earned the title ימח שמו וזכרו - may his name and memory be obliterated. May God Bring that about speedily and in our time.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
