A Final Act Of Hatred - Obama Attacks Israel's Legitimacy At The UN

 

Outgoing President Barack Hussein Obama has devoted a chunk of his remaining time and attention in office to indulge in a spiteful, personal demonstration of his hatred for Israel. It's the final attack of the most anti-Israel administration in U.S. history. And it isn't finished yet.

A reluctant Egypt had been prepared to present an incredibly biased anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution, a bigoted text that had been in the works for some time. But Egyptian President Asissi, after a conversations with president-elect Donald Trump  and Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu pulled the resolution indefinitely. As various diplomatic sources reported, Al Sissi decided that antagonizing the incoming president and straining his security arrangements with Israel weren't worth a UN resolution he didn't want to present anyway.

President Obama had been colluding on this all along with the Palestinians, even advising on wording. He contacted the anti-Israel countries of New Zealand, Venezuela, and the Muslim nations of Senegal and Malaysia to quickly co-sponsor the resolution and get in on the floor quickly for a vote. It passed 14-0, with the U.S. abstaining as planned.

In spite of the outright lies being told by the administrations lackeys, Resolution 2334 represents a major change in U.S. policy.

It demonizes Israel, yet again, as the 'occupying power' in disregard of all historical and legal norms. It refers to Judea, Samaria (AKA the West Bank) as well as east Jerusalem as 'occupied Palestinian territory,' a neat trick since there never was a Palestine and the 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel didn't even mention a Palestinian state.

It calls for Jerusalem, with the Old City, which contains all the Jewish holy sites including the Western Wall to be ceded to 'Palestine.' That means those sites will be desecrated as they were during the nineteen year Jordanian occupation, and will be closed to Jews forever. Yes, it is now the official position of the United States of America that the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, inhabited by Jews for thousands of years except for a 19-year hiatus between 1948-1967 when the Jews were ethnically cleansed from the area is now 'occupied Palestinian territory'. This delegitimizes Israel and the Jewish people and concurs with the anti-semitic UNESCO resolution of October,2016 that nullified all Jewish and Christian ties and connections to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and referred to all of the Holy sites there by their Muslim names. Obama saw to it that United States voted against that UNESCO resolution, but there was an election going on then. That's obviously why the Obama administration vetoed a similar resolution to 2334 in 2011 before his re-election run, but didn't veto 2334. There's no election going on now, and Barack Hussein Obama's situation has obviously changed. Now he can take off the mask without any cost or consequences.

This new diktat creates the boundaries for 'Palestine' giving them all of Judea and Samaria as well as East Jerusalem. In other words, it legitimizes the creation of 580,000 Jewish refugees as well as totally unsafe borders for Israel. It also violates the Oslo Accords and the Road Map, agreements the U.S. was a signatory to that stated unequivocally that any settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority could only be achieved through direct negations between the two parties. And for the first time, it legitimizes Obama's call for imposing a Palestinian state on the 1948 ceasefire lines, another total departure from previous U.S. policy.

 



It calls for member nations, “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967” which legitimizes boycotts. And it calls for an immediate end to all Israeli construction In Judea, Samaria. According to this resolution, Israel isn't even allowed to build a kindergarten or repair a road.

This again is an Obama policy, not something historic. Obama's UN ambassador Samantha Power is noted for calling  for the U.S. to unilaterally invade the region, force Israel into indefensible borders, engage in ethnic cleansing by throwing every Jew out of Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem, turn those areas over to 'Palestine' and establish a U.S. peacekeeping force there to keep Israel from retaliating against the inevitable terrorist attacks on its civilians that would result from the new borders.

What this UN resolution calls for is pretty close to that, but Ambassador Power had the unmitigated gall to lie about it anyway. She defended the U.S. abstention as an act to save the so-called “two-state” solution, something she said Israeli 'settlements activities' are supposedly jeopardizing. She even had the nerve to quote President Ronald Reagan and deliberately take him out of context to justify the vote she just cast. In a 1982 statement, President Ronald Reagan did call for an end to "the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements.” In that statement, quoted by Ambassador Power, President Reagan said that "the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks."

The part she conveniently left out was that in his speech, President Reagan was referring to a freeze on new settlements during a “period of transition,” which would “begin after free elections for a self-governing Palestinian authority” and could prove that “Palestinian autonomy poses no threat to Israel’s security.” President Reagan also said that “the United States will not support the establishment of an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza,” but suggested instead “self-government by the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan.”

Sounds like Ronaldus Maximus understood the true nature of the 'Palestinians' and why 'statehood' for them was a singularly bad idea. Even the Oslo Accords only referred to limited autonomy, not a separate Palestinian state.

You see, it's not Israel's communities in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem that have prevented a settlement.   As Mahmoud Abbas himself admitted, it was President Obama's idea to make a building freeze a major issue when it wasn't before, even to the point of creating a major diplomatic incident between the US and Israel over what was essentially a local zoning issue and then harshly criticizing Israel for rejecting an offer to resume the freeze that the US never made in the first place.

What's prevented a solution is the continued refusal of the Arabs whom call themselves 'Palestinians' to negotiate anything. negotiating, of course means making concessions to thew other side, and Abbas has said repeatedly that he's unwilling to make a single concession to Israel. And why should he, especially now?

President Obama started out his presidency letting anyone who was paying attention that he had  a major problem with America's alliance with Israel and wanted to create lots of 'daylight' between the two countries.  

He was thoroughly schooled in his disdain for Israel by his mentors from his earliest days, Frank Marshall Davis, Edward Said, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Khalid al-Mansour, Bill Ayres and others. Abbas, as a trained Soviet apparatchnik recognized Obama's training instantly and knew that all he had to do was hold out until Obama gifted him what Abbas, wanted, without any concessions whatsoever.

No one with a shred of intellectual honesty can separate this UN action from Jew hatred. This resolution not only meets Natan Sharansky's famous '3D' definition of anti-semitism, ( Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization) but actually conforms to the U.S. Department of State's official working definition of it.

So, where does this go from here?

Reaction in the U.S. itself was mixed in some interesting ways.

President-elect Donald Trump was predictably outraged. Aside from his own warmth towards Israel and the Jewish people, this an attempt by a lame duck president to impose a policy on him as an incoming president was despicable, and Trump made no bones about saying so.

Trump apparently found out what was up, and had called for Obama to veto the resolution the day before it went tothe UN, saying, "As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations,” the president-elect said in a statement Thursday.

"This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis."

And Trump warned the U.N. shortly after the vote via Twitter that “things will be different” after his inauguration.

Many members of congress also expressed outrage. As you can imagine, this was mainly the Republicans. Sen. James Lankford, (R-OK), a member of the Senate appropriations subcommittee responsible for making foreign aid funding decisions, tweeted, "U.N. funding should be up for discussion if the anti #Israel resolution is approved."  Senators Lindsay Graham, Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and others also voiced disgust at this and are calling for defunding the UN, unless this is repealed.

The Israelis,of course, are livid at this deliberate betrayal. But they should have expected it. This was always going to happen with Barack Hussein Obama in the White House, and I predicted it a long time ago. Needless to say, Israel isn't going to abide by any of this.No country would, unless they were collectively suicidal.

Contrary to popular belief in some circles, Israel is not dependent on American military aid. They have their own thriving arms industry and the amount involved is a relatively small part of their defense budget, although it undoubtedly helps. Actually, as I've pointed out before, the U.S. gets far more in goods and services from Israel than we pay out, and Obama's ' generous' new aid package was actually a reduction,not an increase and came with some major strings attached.

The real reason Netanyahu accepted it was an attempt to mollify what he understood was an anti-Israel president, and to try to avoid losing the alliance's real benefit for Israel...that of a trusted friend who would fend off what amounts to institutionalized Jew hatred in the sewer the UN has become. Frankly, after eight years of this president, he should have known better.

But with that benefit now gone, the Israelis have learned a vital and important lesson, one Obama didn't intend. This blatant treachery united the vast majority of Israelis. It proved that Netanyahu and the Israeli Right were correct all along. They now know that there's absolutely no benefit for them in making any concessions, or negotiating anything.Israel could reduce itself to an enclave around Tel Aviv and it would still be too much. And they would still be libeled as 'the occupying power' and face more demands no matter what.

What President Obama and his creatures don't understand is that instead of preserving the fallacy of the so-called two-state solution, this has killed it. In spite of a few indeterminate words about “all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction” Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have never taken anything like that seriously because they have never suffered any consequences at all for it from the UN,the U.S. or the 'international community.' The aid has kept coming in, and no matter what horrendous atrocities they commit against Israeli civilians or what gets taught in the Palestinian Authority's mosques, schools and official media, no matter how well they reward the perpetrators, there's no penalty for their actions. Just pro forma 'condemnations of all violence against civilians' and calls to 'reduce tension' as if Israel was equally at fault.

This resolution essentially legitimizes terrorist attacks on Israelis as 'resistance' and don't think the 'Palestinians' won't rev things up. The Israelis know that and will respond in a far more decisive way than before now that they fully understand that to the UN, nothing they do to defend themselves is legitimate. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Instead of a partner for peace or someone to negotiate with in good faith, Israel, for the first time since the Second Intifada is going to treat Hamas and the Palestinian Authority as exactly what they have always been in reality - a toxic, hostile enemy.

Israel will build in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria like never before. And they may very well annex Area C at the least. After all, if the UN calls the Western Wall inJerusalem and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, some of which have existed since the 1920's 'occupied Palestinian territory,' why not?

As for President Obama, his plan is to double down.

 

Today, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a speech which basically defended 2334. He re-emphasized the lie that the U.S. has always opposed 'settlements' in Judea and Samaria and has always supported a two state solution on the 1948 cease fire lines or to use Kerry's terminology, 'the pre 1967 lines.' The truth, of course is that no U.S. Administration ever called the Jewish communities in Judea,Samaria and Jerusalem 'illegal' before, or called for a two state solution on the 1948 cease fire lines. This is Obama's policy and his alone.

He also trotted out the old line that "“It is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state living in peace and security with its neighbors.”

He seems to forget that Israel is already a Jewish, democratic state with 20% of its population consisting of Arabs, most of whom are fully integrated into Israeli society with the full protection of law. How many Jews live in Abbas's 'Palestine?'. Abbas has already said that no Jews will be allowed in his little reichlet. If anyone has a problem with remaining democratic, it isn't Israel.But you'd never know that to listen to John Kerry. he also repeated the call for a divided Jerusalem and the de facto creation of 580,000 Jewish refugees.

As for peace and security, why would he or any sane person believe that the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinian have any intent of living in peace with Israel, no matter what? Kerry made a mention of their incitement to violence and glorification of terrorists, saying, "The murders of innocents are still glorified on Fatah websites.”

“Despite statements by President Abbas, too often they send a different message by failing to condemn specific attacks and by naming public squares, streets and schools after terrorists.”

Is Kerry really that blind and clueless to think that's going to change, especially since there's no consequences for it, and it's being rewarded by the UN and the Obama Administration?

Kerry made a vague promise in his speech that the US would not seek further UN action. That doesn't mean they won't condone it, help plan and compose  it, and do their best to help push it through.

On January 16th, there's a long planned French-sponsored conference that will focus exclusively  Israel and establishing a Palestinian state. Israel is not attending, but the U.S. will be there.

On January 17th, there's yet another UN Security Council meeting  scheduled.  The UN normally moves quite slowly, but rest assured that both the Paris conference and the meeting have already been pretty much scripted. My guess is that another resolution arises out of it.

 President Barack Hussein Obama isn't through attacking Israel yet.

.

John Kerry Used Taxpayer Funds to Finance His Daughter's Six Figure Income And 'Expenses'

 

Here's yet another example of how our self appointed Ruling Class plunders the country.

Our Secretary of State John Kerry funneled millions of taxpayer dollar to his daughter's non profit, which pays her over $140,000 per year salary in edition to various expenses - travel,car, phone, fundraising, the usual assortment:

The Department of State funded a Peace Corps program created by Dr. Vanessa Kerry and officials from both agencies, records show. The Peace Corps then awarded the money without competition to a nonprofit Kerry created for the program.

Initially, the Peace Corps awarded Kerry’s group — now called Seed Global Health — with a three-year contract worth $2 million of State Department money on Sept. 10, 2012, documents show. Her father was then the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which oversees both the Department of State and the Peace Corps.

Seed secured a four-year extension in September 2015, again without competition. This time, the Peace Corps gave the nonprofit $6.4 million provided by the Department of State while John Kerry was secretary of state.

Seed also received almost $1 million from a modification to the first award, as well as from Department of State funds the group secured outside the Peace Corps. {...}


It's also clear that Kerry and government officials colluded to launch the program and make sure that that Seed would get the contract and no one else's non-profit would be considered.

“Vanessa, Buck, and Sarah are meeting with Ambassador Goosby on the morning of 9/16/11 to discuss next steps for the GHSP,” said a memo from September 16, 2011 — one year before Seed received its first award. “Conversations with OGAC leadership confirm that Ambassador Goosby is very supportive of the initial proposal.”

The memo was referring to Peace Corps Directors Buck Buckingham and Sarah Morgenthau and Ambassador Eric Goosby, who then headed the Office of the US Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) — the State Department office that later funded GHSP.


A meeting one month later unveiled the strategy to send tax dollars to Seed.
“The public funding to start the GHSP is secured, it will come from OGAC through [Peace Corps] to support core HQ and field based activities, and to develop a sub-agreement to provide support to the foundation for contributions for their work in this partnership,” minutes from a Nov. 18, 2011, meeting said. The “foundation” refers to Seed, which was then called the Foundation for Global Health Service.

Officials in that meeting also assured Kerry that she would not have to compete with other groups for Department of State funds.

“Buck obtained clarity of the mechanism by which federal money will be provided to” Seed, the minutes said. “The process can be fast tracked and non-competed through a specific grant mechanism.”

 Seed got its first award less than a year later. And the Peace Corps later provided another nearly $900,000, claiming it underestimated the program’s expenses, especially travel and salary costs.

The only person listed as getting a salary according to the nonprofit’s 990 tax form filed after that $900,000 was provided  is Dr. Vanessa Kerry — over $140,000 for a reported 30 hours per week.

The $6.4 million extension - also provided without competition- was given in spite of  Peace Corps rules that  contracts could not extend beyond five years.  While there were a few voices saying that this was a violation of the Peace Corp's rules, ultimately they were overruled and the decision was made they would “go forward with sole-source option if mandated by OGAC,” minutes from a July 17, 2014 meeting said. Of course, it was mandated.

So the extension was awarded without competition on Sept. 10, 2015. And the  Peace Corps violated its five-year policy by giving Seed seven years of non-competitively awarded funding.

Of course, State Department spokesman John Kirby issued a statement that Secretary Kerry had nothing to do with the large amount of funding and special treatment his daughter's non-profit got.

I'm sure Kirby's defense of his boss can be believed. Not.

In spite of the cronyism involved, Seed isn't the Clinton Foundation. It actually does try to do some good.  It offers medical professionals like doctors and nurses student debt forgiveness in exchange for their agreeing to work as volunteers in Africa. But the insider, non-competing rule bending nature of how this was done? Corrupt to the core.


Whatever good Seed accomplishes, the downside that the media rarely reports are the number of Peace Corps and medical volunteers in Africa who get robbed, raped, assaulted, kidnapped for ransom and murdered every year, especially women. A lot of these countries have a Muslim component and infidels are fair game.

You have to wonder if Seed fills in it's potential volunteers on that grim detail before they go overseas. From what several sources have said, the Peace Corps itself tends to gloss over it.

The Story Behind The Israeli Government's Move To The Right

There had been a fair amount of talk about Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu bringing the leftist Zionist Union Party, the shotgun wedding between Labor and Tzipi Livni's fractional Hatnua faction into Netanyahu's center right coalition in a unity government. Netanyahu and ZU leader Yitzhak Herzog were reportedly engaged in negotiations to do just that.

But today, a political thunderbolt hit, with Netanyahu instead bringing a party on the right, Israeli Beiteinu and its leader Avigdor Liberman into the coalition instead, increasing Netanyahu's Knesset majority from an unstable 61 seats to a much more solid 67 seats.

Liberman will reportedly replace General Moshe 'Boogie' Ya'alon as defense minister and the announcement could come as soon as tomorrow.

The back story here is fascinating.

Yitzhak Herzog, or 'Buji' as he's referred to by many Israelis * is head of a steadily decreasing Leftist faction since the last election when Zionist Union was decisively beaten by Likud and other parties on the right. As a consequence, Herzog, whose party received substantial money and assistance from Obama Administration functionaries during the election was seen as ineffectual and a loser.

For Buji, going into the coalition was seen as a lifeline to make ZU politically relevant again, and he had support from US Secretary of State John Kerry, former British PM and Quartet envoy Tony Blair and socialist French PM Hollande among others who were trying to push Netanyahu into putting together a more 'centrist' government.

However, Herzog had a major problem - his Zionist Union colleagues mostly hated the idea like poison, and a lot of them were already no huge fans of Buji.

Tzipi Livni said she would take her Hatnua faction and its six seats out of Zionist Union rather than join the government, and Herzog's far left rival for party leadership Shelly Yachimovich threatened a revolt.

So Herzog's solution was to up the price for joining to the point where even the most reluctant members of ZU would go along. He reportedly demanded control of Israel's Foreign ministry and a veto on anything concerning Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. Not only did he price himself out of the market, but the fracas from ZU made Netanyahu doubt Herzog could bring his party along with him.

So Netanyahu reached out to Avigdor Liberman, with whom he had a long standing feud that dated back to a joint list agreement between Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu which Liberman felt was unfair in its application as well as disagreements on policy.

The two men have apparently patched up their differences or at least put them aside for now and agreed to work together, with a formal announcement reportedly to be issued shortly.

While General Ya'alon has an honorable record as a soldier, he has been a fairly controversial Defense Minister. The most recent incident was his decision to prosecute an IDF soldier with a superb record whom shot a terrorist whom was already wounded and on the ground in the course of an attack on Israeli civilians. The soldier's defense is that he had no idea whether the wounded attacker had a bomb belt on or a firearm in his pockets, and Ya'alon's insistence that he be prosecuted has been extremely controversial in Israel. Other problems like leaks and statements critical of the government coming from Ya'alon and some of his subordinates have also been a problem as well as his essentially ignoring policy on a number of matters. He simply forgot whom was giving the orders.

Liberman, while he lacks Ya'alon's military experience ( he served as a corporal in the IDF) has a very different view of things like prosecuting a soldier for killing a terrorist.

His take on the matter? “It’s better to have a soldier who made a mistake and lived than one who hesitated and had a terrorist kill him.”

That kind of attitude will probably resonate a lot better from a common sense standpoint with the Israeli public whose loved ones serve in the IDF.

There are also some signs that Liberman has gotten some control over his tendency to shoot from the lip, but we'll see.

Ya'alon was offered the fairly influential post of Foreign Minister by Netanyahu had he chosen to stay on, but instead he chose to resign and leave the government in a huff after making a rather heated speech that could best be paraphrased as 'Apres moi, le deluge.'

I have also heard a strong rumor from another source that Naftali Bennett from Jewish Home will be moving from education minister to head the Foreign Ministry. I have my doubts but we'll see how that develops.

But in any event, the government on the Right Israelis voted for looks likely to be preserved, ZU is out in the cold where they belong and Yitzhak Herzog will not be embedded in position to be a willing tool to pressure Netanyahu and the Israeli government to make ridiculous concessions for a few empty promises and a worthless piece of paper.


* In Hebrew, 'Buji' is slang for a little doll or toy. In an interview with MK Herzog's mother, she unfortunately revealed that this was her pet name for him as a child and in view of his extremely diminutive stature, Yitzak Herzog has been stuck with it ever since. It is not considered a term of endearment by most Israelis whom use it to refer to MK Herzog.

Breaking - The Sordid Details Of Munich II Leak Out

 

Some of my sources have given me an outline of some of what's in the coming Iranian nuclear agreement, and it's even worse than I thought it would be. The blather we heard about 'no deal being better than a bad deal' and 'hard choices' from Secretary of State John Kerry turned out to mean a deal at any price, and the hard choices being made not by Iran but by John Kerry and the Obama Administration.

For starters, remember how we were told that Iran would be required to allow inspections to verify they were keeping their agreement? Well, in this new agreement, there are no real inspections involved, and the IAEA has been totally castrated. Any inspections that do take place will be prearranged with the Iranian regime at a time and place of their choosing. Since the Iranians have already said repeatedly that no inspections will be allowed in any of their military facilities under any circumstances, that essentially means no inspections at all and no ability to verify if Iran is keeping its word.

Considering the sort of regime we're dealing with, backing down on inspections is unbelievable.

Another red line the Iranians have been able to get President Obama to back down on was the insistence that Iran detail all activities it conducted regrading weaponization in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it signed prior to the this new agreement. This was important because the whole idea of this farce was supposedly to keep Iran within one year of 'breakout' - the time when the Iranians can develop a nuclear weapon.

Since the Obama Administration backed off on this condition, we now will have no idea how close they are to breakout, there will be absolutely no way to tell if they're a year away, six months away of one month away..especially as there will also be no meaningful inspections.

Originally, the position of the P5+1(the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany)was that Iran would be allowed only 500 to 1,500 centrifuges and they were all supposed to be IR-1s, Iran’s first generation centrifuge. That number is now 6,500, and the Iranians have actually been offered more up-to-date centrifuges by the P5+1 as an incentive. To give you an idea of the realities involved, contrary to President Obama's own assurances about 'freezing Iran's enrichment', Iran has actually increased its nuclear stockpile in violation of the framework agreement. This is 20% enriched uranium, 90% of the way toward weaponization, which can be reconverted into material suitable for further enriching to weapons-grade levels in only  a few weeks at most. Just as we have no idea of exactly what or where all of Iran's nuclear facilities are, we have no clue as to exactly how much enriched uranium they have...nor will we, based on the current agreement being finalized.

Another important concession Iran won is their 'right' to continue what Iran's President Rouhani called 'all forms of nuclear research and development.' That includes Iran's plutonium producing heavy water reactor at Arak, which has no peacetime application. You might remember that when John Kerry originally presented the framework agreement back in November 2013, he claimed that the Iranians had agreed to shut Arak down. The Iranians said in no uncertain terms that Kerry and President Obama were lying, and the end result was that the Obama team signed off on Arak, where Iran will continue to produce plutonium.

I could be charitable and say it was an error in translation, but in view of all the other differences between what our president and his  secretary of State told the world and what the Iranians claim they agreed to, I'll call it willful deception.

Keep in mind that none of this has anything to do with a peaceful nuclear power or medical uses because nuclear enrichment isn't needed for that. Canada, Sweden, Argentina and other countries all have peaceful nuclear programs without enrichment capacity. It's only needed if you're building nuclear weapons. President Barack Obama himself admitted this, back in December 2013.

But wait, there's more.

 

President Obama made a point of using the term 'snap back sanctions' last April to describe what the consequences for Iran would be if they cheated on the agreement. As our president knew full well, this term meant nothing when he used it and is even more meaningless now.

The sanctions regime took years to assemble in a form where at least most of the international community would go along with it. The sanctions have now been almost totally undone since the president's Iranian-born consigliere Valerie Jarret's secret, back channel negotiations with Iran for most of 2013 were concluded. President Obama actually watered down many of the sanctions with waivers prior to and after the initial framework agreement, and when he spoke to the American people last April, he knew that the sanctions regime was history.

Moreover, he also knew that Russia and China, whom were never that keen on the sanctions to begin with had already announced that they won't participate in future sanctions, something Russian Foreign Minister Serge Lavrov recently repeated. And of course, with verification now entirely gutted, any attempt at revising the sanctions for cause is going to be difficult if not impossible to get through the UN. I'm informed that there may be a face saving plank moving sanctions relief to 2016, but that's fairly meaningless because it's not going to be observed anyway.

You see, not only did President Obama invalidate the sanctions, the one thing that brought Iran to the table. He rewarded the fascist Iranian regime with billions in badly needed cash for the privilege of talking to them. In fact, the Iranian regime's central bank just received 13 tons of gold with a value of $11.9 billion as part of a package of sanctions relief before signing or agreeing to anything. Any idiot knows that money changes hands when a deal is concluded, not before. The Iranians will keep that money regardless, and it's surprising to me that John Kerry left the conference room in Vienna still retaining his pants and shoes.

 

And there's even more. The Iranian regime came up with yet another demand at the last minute. As a major supporter and enabler of Islamist terrorism worldwide, Iran is under a UN arms embargo. And Iran is insisting that it be lifted as part of this deal. No word yet, but according to the Iranian Official News source Fars, the Obama Administration is going to go along with that too. And why not? They've given the Ayatollahs everything else they wanted.

And don't be surprised if the US provides some of those weapons, In fact, right now in Iraq, US advisers are sharing bases with Hezbollah fighters and Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops, and some are surprised to see Hezbollah troops flaunting US weaponry. They shouldn't be.

Having created ISIS, President Obama wants Iran to do the dirty work on the ground to clean up the mess he created. To get that, he's willing to allow Basher Assad to survive, return Iraq to Iran as a Shi'ite colony, and allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The arms race this will set off in the region is of no concern to him. Neither is the security threat to the US of a nuclear armed Iran, or the Second Holocaust the Iranians continue to promise to unleash on Israel as soon as they're able to do so.

So to sum up, this deal does not provide for any real verification of Iran's breakout capacity, nuclear facilities or IBCMs, does not stop Iran from proceeding towards developing nuclear weapons, does away with what's left of the sanctions, and will reward the Iranian regime with billions in cash beyond what they've already received. In exchange for that, there's a worthless piece of paper President Obama can figuratively wave in the Rose Garden.


 

Would you like to know how President Obama is going to try to sell this to the American people? Here's a sneak preview:



Why yes, it's Mr. Bill, whom some Americans still see a a great president. The North Korean deal he and Marilyn Albright cooked up with the Kims led directly to Pakistan's nuclear weapons and Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program. President Obama will attempt to use the same sort of turgid prose to tell us all lies about what a wonderful deal this is. After all, he'll almost certainly be out of office when the damage he did to this nation becomes evident, just like Bill Clinton. And rest assured, that damage will likely be profound.

Because of the way President Barack Hussein Obama has set this up, congress is entirely out of the loop on a major security issue because this is agreement is being done via the UN Security Council. The Senate can vote for a motion of disapproval, which would keep some US sanctions in force. But when the president vetoes it, the chances of getting 12 Democrats senators to vote to override that veto are very slim, given the pressure being put on them.

The real joke is that even if the Iranians don't sign on to this deal, they still got everything they wanted - 17 months to continue their nuclear weapons development and to further protect their nuclear facilities from attacks, billions in cash and the destruction of the sanctions regime. And if they do sign on, nothing changes.After all, what's one more UN resolution to cheat on? They don't even have to make a pretense of changing their hostility to the west or their ultimate objective towards the nation they call The Great Satan as they move towards the day they announce their successful test of a nuclear device.

The Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's President Rouhani and Iran's Foreign Minister and chief negotiator Mohammad Javad Zarif sized up early the weak, craven and self-obsessed men they were dealing with quite some time ago,and played them thoroughly.

This is the post-American presidency indeed, when the practitioners of what my friend calls wifebeater patriotism have taken over our Republic and are doing their very best to loot it, damage it, and weaken it for their own purposes as they attempt to remake it to conform to the distorted mirror of their own image.

UPDATE: The Iranian nuclear deal was announced today, and once again my notorious Little Birdies came through - the deal as presented was pretty much what they said it would be, with a few last minute minor changes, none of which mean much in practical terms. The name of this new agreement is a dead giveaway - the 'Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.' Note the word 'plan.'

The details are here.

Marie Harf Forced Out As State Department Spokeswoman

 

Yes, Marie Harf is leaving us, at least as a public figure in front of the cameras. She's been moved out of the public eye..ummm, promoted to a “new role” as senior adviser for strategic communications to Secretary of State John Kerry, where she will likely have to listen to him talk at length, poor thing, but at least won't have to face all those awkward questions in public any more.

This, after being denied the usual promotion to Jan Psaki's old job after Psaki moved on to become White House Communications Director...heartrending.

Marie Harf was at least entertaining, which is more than I can say for most of the current Regime. It was particularly comical when she was thrown a question on some of the ridiculous things she said trying to defend the regime's foreign policy faux paux. Her forehead would wrinkle, her eyes would grimace, those glasses of hers would slide halfway down her nose and you could literally see the tension as she tried to come up with something that wouldn't get her in even more trouble.It was like watching a hamster desperately running on the little wheel in her cage.

Some of the FOX news folks had some fun at her expense, compiling a video of some of her more famous moments:

June 3, 2014: In response to questioning by Fox News at the briefing, Harf downplayed criticism of the recently announced trade of five Taliban fighters for Bergdahl.
She downplayed "conflicting reports" and "rumor" when asked about accounts from Bergdahl's platoon-mates that he walked off base.

"There's a lot of rumor and telephone game that's being played here," she said.
After continued questioning, she said: "It happened five years ago."

Bergdahl would later be charged with desertion. Former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal also told Fox News this week it was his initial understanding as well that Bergdahl walked off his base before he disappeared.

Sept. 25, 2014: Harf was asked, in an interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly, to respond to a warning that the U.S. would lose if President Obama did not approve ground troops to fight the Islamic State in Iraq.

"I'm not exactly sure what 'lose' means," Harf said, arguing the solution is "targeted military action." She said the prior U.S. engagement in Iraq, with tens of thousands of U.S. troops on the ground, couldn't prevent terrorism.

Feb. 16, 2015: Speaking on MSNBC's "Hardball," Harf suggested that jobs programs are needed to help take on the Islamic State.

"We're killing a lot of them, and we're going to keep killing more of them. ... But we cannot win this war by killing them," she said. "We need ... to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's lack of opportunity for jobs, whether --"

Harf was interrupted by host Chris Matthews, who pointed out, "There's always going to be poor people. There's always going to be poor Muslims." She acknowledged there's "no easy solution" and said the U.S. would still take out ISIS leaders. But Harf said: "If we can help countries work at the root causes of this -- what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business?"

Feb. 17, 2015: Responding to critics of her remarks on helping fight terror by creating jobs, Harf said her statements were just "too nuanced" for her critics.

"Longer term, we cannot kill every terrorist around the world, nor should we try," Harf said on CNN. "How do you get at the root causes of this? Look, it might be too nuanced an argument for some, like I've seen over the past 24 hours some of the commentary out there, but it's really the smart way that Democrats, Republicans, military commanders, our partners in the Arab world think we need to combat this." Harf went on to say the approach doesn't fit "into a sound bite."

March 6, 2015: Fielding questions at the briefing about ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of private email, Harf was asked if the department would release a 2011 cable -- obtained by Fox News -- showing her office told employees not to use personal email for security reasons.

"I think everyone can read it at FoxNews.com," she quipped.

She then assured, "That was in no way an endorsement," before adding: "I don't mean to be flip about it."

When you're the Regime's foreign policy spokesmouth and even Chris Matthews isn't buying what's coming out of your mouth, it really is time to get out of Dodge. And the Regime figured that out, even if Marie Harf didn't.

And that must puzzle her. She did all the right things...total Democrat, major Lefty, a real true believer.  Why,she even wrote her college thesis on the awful way all those wack job Right Wingers and Evangelicals support Israel and how bad it is for U.S.foreign policy! How much more qualified for an Obama State Department gig could she be?

And then straight outta college and into the Obama Campaign as a loyal soldier Down For The Cause, and then it all explodes as she gets banished off stage, with maybe a quick bit on MSNBC every once in a blue moon if she's lucky.

I've seen some mean things (OK, some of them were pretty funny) on the 'Net about how stupid Marie Harf is. I don't think that's it at all.

There were other things that screwed her up, if you ask me.

When you believe in the godking from Chi-town and the accompanying dogma as much as she does, you have to really suspend belief on certain things that have come to light in the last six years or so. To an extent, you have to convince yourself that red is really is blue, that right is left and that the sun rises in the west. To do this convincingly, you have to be a really good liar, good enough to sell it to others.

Mr. Bill is a great example. There's a certain percentage of America's population he could urinate on in public, remark to them about that sudden rain shower we're  having and get away with it. Yes, I know, he's a pathological liar but at this point he's trained himself to actually believe what he's saying is truth, and that's invaluable to him.

Plus Mr. Bill has another great tool that makes this work, an astounding memory. At his second inaugural, the teleprompters died, but Bill Clinton was able to rattle off the entire speech from memory. Can you imagine Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro pulling that one off?


Just compare Bill's skills to those of  Hillary, who's also a serial prevaricator but who  frequently gets caught at it because her delivery lacks Bill's utter conviction and/or she forgets whatever lie it was she told before.

So therein lay Marie Harf's problem. Being a True Believer, she was, on the surface at least, able to stick to the Regime script, but she lacked Bill Clinton's performance ability, and so did the people she was assigned to try and cover up for.  And, being one of the Entitled, there was a part of her that always resented even having to try, and it showed...'Hey, I've got a Masters, I wear glasses and I'm smarter than all of you dammit ! That's why I'm Deputy State Department deputy spokeswoman! '

Ah, but no more, Marie Harf. At least backstage working with the fog machines, you're still part of the show and afterwards, who knows? Maybe a book deal or a gig at MSNBC or one of the alphabet networks.

Because being a True Believer and Down for The Struggle means never having to say you're sorry. Just ask George Stephanopoulos.

Best of luck at the new job.

Munich II

President Barack Hussein Obama announced yesterday that a deal - ooops, a 'framework for a deal' had been achieved with Iran on its illegal nuclear program.

Here's what the president said the components of this unwritten, unsigned framework were.

First of all, he claimed that the reactor at Iran's heavy water facility at Arak will be dismantled so the Iranians cannot produce plutonium, a second route to nuclear weapons.He also claimed that nuclear material from Arak would be shipped out of Iran, that Iran would not build a new heavy water reactor and that Iran will not reprocess fuel from its existing reactors ever.

Second, he claimed that the Iranians agreed that its centrifuges would be reduced by two thirds, and that Iran will not enrich uranium with its advanced centrifuges for at least the next 10 years. He also said that Iran would no longer enrich uranium at its top secret military facility at Fordow. and that there would be severe limits on Iran's stockpiling of the materials needed to build a nuclear weapon.

He said there would be limits on Iran's nuclear program, research and development for a decade and that Iran would never be allowed to build a nuclear weapon.

He also claimed that current sanctions would be gradually phased out in accordance with Iranian compliance, that Iran would face intense inspections and scrutiny, and that if if was found cheating, the UN would slap massive sanctions back on Iran.

There's not a single statement in the above four paragraphs that's true, and that comes from no less than Iran's own Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who supposedly agreed to all this in the last minute negotiations at Lausanne:

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.

Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations. [...]

Zarif, echoing previous comments, said the United States has promised an immediate termination of sanctions.

“Iran/5+1 Statement: ‘US will cease the application of ALL nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions.’ Is this gradual?” he wrote on Twitter.

He then suggested a correction: “Iran/P5+1 Statement: ‘The EU will TERMINATE the implementation of ALL nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions’. How about this?”


On Thursday evening, Zarif told reporters the latest agreement allows Iran to keep operating its nuclear program.

“None of those measures” that will move to scale back Iran’s program “include closing any of our facilities,” Zarif said. “We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development.”
“Our heavy water reactor will be modernized and we will continue the Fordow facility,” Zarif said. “We will have centrifuges installed in Fordow, but not enriching.”

The move to allow Iran to keep centrifuges at Fordow, a controversial onetime military site, has elicited concern that Tehran could ramp up its nuclear work with ease.

The scrutiny and inspections, of course, can be relied on to tell us everything we need to know about Iran's nuclear program, right? Because the Iranians would never try to hide that sort of thing from us, and can be relied on not to cheat

As for the president's threat of renewed sanctions, just like his promises on ObamaCare he is knowingly lying to the American people. It took two years to put together the sanctions regimen in the UN. Now that Obama has essentially dismantled it, it isn't going to happen again, certainly not in time to be of any use. Russia will see to that.

And here perhaps is the most chilling statement Zarif made:

Zarif also revealed that Iran will be allowed to sell “enriched uranium” in the international market place and will be “hopefully making some money” from it.

Can you imagine whom a regime that is the major supporter of Islamist terrorism like Iran is likely to sell nuclear materials and know how to? Iran itself obtained quite a bit from Pakistan's notorious AQ Khan when he was running what amounted to a cash and carry supermarket for this sort of merchandise. What Iran is obviously planning will make what Khan did look minor.

President Obama claims that this 'framework' agreement is a good deal. In reality, all it does is give Iran another three which gives Iran another three months to work on its nuclear weapons technology in exchange for...absolutely nothing specific. Instead of leading to reduced nuclear proliferation, it will increase it, since countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are under no illusions as to what this means.

This goes beyond mere appeasement. President Obama and John Kerry are enabling a nuclear armed Iran.

All other things aside, this president and his team are allowing a murderous regime that has sworn to destroy Israel on numerous occasions the tools to attempt a second Holocaust. And there's no question in my mind that this is deliberate.

The moron prog think tank response to this is that the Iranians are rational actors whom would never do this, because of the risk of retaliation by Israel. Let's see what the founder of the regime, the Ayatollah Khomeini had to say about that:

"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

The Iranians have continued to promise to destroy Israel since 1978 when Khomeini took over. That goal has never changed.

Neither has their goal of destroying America. In fact, during the Lausanne negotiations, Iran's Supreme Leader the Ayatollah Khamenei once again led crowds in the old chant,"death to America."



He means it, and so does Iran. For those of you whom think this is just Israel's problem and you couldn't care less, guess again. Once the Iranians attack what they refer to as the Little Satan, the Great Satan is next on the list.

These things only start with the Jews. They don't end there.

Barack Obama and John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they were willing to take a position of strength and turn it into a position of weakness.  In fact, they became the Iranians' community organizers lobbying the other P5+1 countries to accept more and more concessions. Kerry at one point said, “Simply demanding that Iran  capitulate makes a nice sound bite,but [a sound bite] is not a policy, it is not a realistic plan.”

Actually, giving Iran a choice between having its nuclear weapons program and having an economy  was an extremely realistic plan. So was telling the Iranians that if negotiations failed, they wouldn't even have a nuclear program any longer, because we would seek other means to solve the problem.

Instead, Barack Obama and John Kerry capitulated on virtually every major point the Iranians wanted, while rewarding them with  billions in badly needed funds simply for continuing the process. It was like two hookers paying a john for deigning to partake of their services rather than the other way around.

President Obama wants some kind of deal with Iran at whatever cost. And he'll get it any way he can.

What he has in mind is not that hard to figure out.From the beginning, his goal was to promote and empower Islamists at home and abroad while distancing America from Israel. After this backfired in Egypt and even more horrendously in Libya, his next attempt was in Syria. Islamic State was originally armed and trained by the Obama Administration, with the help of Qatar and Turkey. after which it promptly attacked and defeated the corrupt Shi'ite regime in Iraq.

Having pounded his chest repeatedly about how he ended 'Bush's war' successfully, President Obama can't ignore Iraq. Islamic State has been far too blatant for that. But politically, he can't do anything meaningful about it beyond a few air strikes, and certainly not in the in the way of putting boots on the ground, The radical Leftist  anti-war base he and the other leaders of the Democrat party created as a political weapon after 9/11 now controls that party for the most part, and the last thing Barack Obama  wants is to awaken the beast on his watch.

So his solution is to have Iran and its proxies do the dirty work on the ground in Iraq, while the U.S. helps out with a few desultory air strikes. In exchange, the Iranian will be allowed to return Iraq to its status as an Iranian colony, and President Obama will see to it that there's an end to sanctions and wink at Iran's  obtaining nuclear weapons.

The president sees this as 'a good deal' for a number of reasons. He wants to exchange Israel and the Gulf States for Iran as our chief ally in the region, and he feels that this will all lead to a lessening of tension in the region and to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. And above all, he and his Secretary of State really seem to believe that the Iranians are not interested in nuclear weapons.  In fact, he even quoted, again, a  religious fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons by the Ayatollah Khamenei.

This is sheer madness.

Iran has been in a state of war with us  since 1979. They were complicit in 9/11,  and they have no interest in an alliance with 'The Great Satan,'  This 'good deal' President Obama is pimping will feverishly ramp up the tension in the Middle East as Egypt, the Saudis and the GCC countries all scramble for their own nukes in the face of the Shi'ite threat, and an attack on Iran's facilities using tactical nukes by Israel becomes a distinct possibility. And finally, the Fatwa against nuclear weapons the president keeps babbling about is a myth. It doesn't exist.

Of course, when things spiral out of hand President Obama will likely be safely out of office, and it can be conveniently blamed on someone else, the same way 9/11 was blamed on a hapless President George W. Bush by the usual suspects. The huge cost of this folly will be paid by America, by Israel and by anyone else the Iranians target in ways we can't even begin to imagine, just as the French and British couldn't imagine the aftermath of Munich in 1938.

This is Munich II, and it will be far worse than the original in terms of destruction and lives lost unless this foul, craven sell out is stopped cold. If this stands it will be an unmitigated defeat for the West, and knowing whom was responsible and cursing their names in the annals of history will be cold comfort in the aftermath.

'Palestine' Fails At The UN - And The Real Story Behind It

 
 
Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority finally submitted their resolution to the UN Security Council last night and it came up for a vote today.

Before we look at how it turned out and why, let's examine what led up to this.

Mahmoud Abbas originally presented this December 17th  as a unilateral attempt to get the UN behind defining 'Palestine' as the areas the PLO wants for a state...essentially the pre '67 boundaries, or as former Israeli diplomat Abba Eban aptly referred to them, the Auschwitz Lines. Of course, this violated both the Oslo Accords and the Road Map the PLO had signed, but then they never lived up to those agreements anyway.

Since the unity agreement with Hamas, Abbas has seen his credibility fade even farther than it already had. Hamas had shown no signs of giving up sovereignty in Gaza to Abbas and Fatah, and with Abbas now in year ten of what was originally supposed to be a four year term, Hamas  was pressing him to put together elections. Abbas attempted to compete with Hamas for the support of the Palestinian 'street' by ramping up the Third Intifada with attacks against Israel's civilians and a speech in the UN accusing Israel of genocide, which hardened a lot of attitudes in Israel. But he was still in a position where he needed to appear to take the lead. So he went to the UN, ranting that if the UNSC failed to vote to pass his resolution, he would 'cut off all dealing with Israel (what 'dealings'?) and sue Israel via the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes.

The original draft called for a complete Israeli 'withdrawal' to the pre-'67 lines by 2017, Jerusalem as a 'shared capitol' whatever that means, and a 'just solution' for the refugees of 1948..the Arab ones, that is, not the Jews. The French had come up with an alternative draft, so the Jordanian ambassador and the PLO representatives got together with the French and came up with a second draft. As Abbas said, they took certain parts of it and "added Palestinian  observations."

The French draft originally called for recognition of Israel as the Jewish State. Abbas and Saeb Erekat got that removed, and hardened the language considerably. Now, East Jerusalem was to be the capitol of Palestine exclusively, Arab refugees were to be allowed a Right of Return, and all of the Palestinian terrorists in Israel's jails were to be released. It also calls for Israeli occupation forces to be replaced by “a third-party presence.” Or in other words, a force to shield Fatah and Hamas terrorists from Israeli retaliation and give them a base where they can train, recruit and launch attacks from with impunity.

But wait, there's more. Check out this language:

Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfills the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders.


Since the Arab-occupied parts of Judea, Samaria and Gaza have never been 'democratic' in
the way normal people conceive of the word,that simply means there would be at least one election if this were to go through..the one Hamas wins,just as they won the last one. Not only that,but note the use of the word 'contiguous.'



If 'Palestine' is contiguous, obviously Israel will not be. So along with swamping Israel with homicidal 'refugees' , releasing the current crop of experienced terrorists from Israel jails and forcing Israel back to indefensible borders, this resolution calls for a further split in Israeli territory between Gaza and the proposed Abbasistan in Judea and Samaria.

Even if the UNSC had voted for this travesty, Israel had already made it known they weren't going to abide by it.No sane country would.

What happened next is of interest.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry got involved at that point, asking Abbas not to present the current draft resolution to the UNSC. His reasons had nothing to do with it being unfair or in violation of two treaties the U.S. was a signatory to as well as the Palestinian Authority. What he asked Abbas to do was to wait until after the Israeli elections in March because putting this out now would strengthen the Israeli right.


But Abbas presented it anyway, via Jordan, the Arab representative on the UNSC.

What happened next was even  more curious. Walk with me a moment and I'll explain.

The UN Security Council is composed of five permanent members and ten rotating ones. The five permanent members - America, Russia China, France and Britain- are a remnant of what the victors looked like after WWII and are the ones with a veto.The rest of the UN membership is divided into regional groups  and the rotating members are chosen by a vote in their particular group. Israel, by the way,  has never been a member of the Security Council and never will be because Israel is  lumped in with the Arab nations, which is why a marginal country like Jordan is that group's representative rather than the most powerful and economically advanced country in that group.

The rotating members serve for two years, and the current members include Argentina, Australia,  Chad, Chile, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Nigeria, South Korea and Rwanda.

Argentina, Australia, Luxemburg, Korea and Rwanda have their terms ending in 2014, and they're going to be replaced in 2015 by  Angola, Malaysia, New Zealand, Spain, and Venezuela. Or to put it another way, three pro-Israel members ( Australia, South Korea and Rwanda) are going to be replaced 5 countries that definitely aren't, including one Muslim nation that doesn't even recognize Israel's existence and another one (Spain) whose parliament has already voted to recognize 'Palestine.'


While the draft resolution was presented yesterday, Abbas and Jordan had full control over when it was voted on. Common sense would indicate that they would wait until the new year for a vote, when they were almost certain to get the nine votes it would take to pass.

Instead, the resolution was brought to the Council today by Jordanian Ambassador Dina Kawar for consideration today, with the present membership. Eight countries voted in favor of the motion - China, France, Russia, Argentina, Chad, Chile, Jordan, Luxembourg. Two countries voted against it, Australia and The United States. The other five, South Korea, Britain, Nigeria, Rwanda and Lithuania abstained.

I want to  point out something here. While this particular resolution would have been ignored by Israel even if it had passed, every country that voted for this voted in principal for the ethnic cleansing of 500,00 Jews, the barring of Jews permanently from their holiest religious sites, and for an Israel helpless against terrorist assaults.

And they also voted to dignify with statehood an autocratic  'government' composed of vicious, and corrupt kleptocrats on the one hand and genocidal murderers on the other.

US State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said that the resolution “sets arbitrary deadlines for reaching a peace agreement and for Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank, and those are more likely to curtail useful negotiations than to bring them to a successful conclusion.”

“Further, we think that the resolution fails to account for Israel's legitimate security needs, and the satisfaction of those needs, of course, integral to a sustainable settlement, ” he said.

So...what's going on here? There are two possibilities, and the game that's actually being played here will be revealed by what 'Palestine' does next.

You'll remember that in his earlier remarks,  Secretary Kerry didn't tell Abbas that the U.S. didn't support the resolution per se. He asked Abbas to wait until after the Israeli elections. The Obama Administration, like the Clinton Administration before them wants Netanyahu out and a Left wing government headed by Labor's  easily manipulated Yitzhak Herzog and the ever flexible Tzipi Livni in.

The U.S. also didn't want to have to use its veto and risk upsetting Arab allies now involved in a coalition against IS. So tonight's  exercise could very easily have been kabuki theater in which everyone got what they wanted - Abbas gained some street cred for going to the UN, The U.S. didn't need to use its veto, and Britain got out of having to vote against the resolution, which would have inflamed the large part of its population that loathes Israel. Since Australia, Rwanda and South Korea would have  voted no anyway if it came down to it, all they needed was one more abstention. Netanyahu did part of the work by convincing his friend, the pro-Israel Jonathan Goodluck to have Nigeria abstain.

If the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians avoid going back to the UNSC after this, concentrate  on the ICC and other channels and reintroduce this after March, when the Obama Administration will know whether its efforts to oust Netanyahu succeeded, we'll know what happened today backstage, especially if the U.S. abstains or votes yes after Israel's elections for substantially the same resolution.

This, by the way, is the scenario I lean towards.

The other possibility is that the Palestinians simply miscalculated. The resolution only failed to pass by one vote,and it would have almost certainly passed had the vote been scheduled in 2015, barring a U.S. veto. I personally doubt the second scenario since the Palestinians could simply have waited and been ensured of it passing.

If Abbas submits this again shortly after the new UNSC members take their seats, then we'll know that this was indeed a simple miscalculation and that today's events are going to be repeated, but probably with a different outcome - unless the U.S. vetoes it. W'll see if they do.

The Blood Of Zion Cries Out

 

Early this morning, four Jews at morning prayers were murdered in a synagogue in Jerusalem after two Palestinian broke in and assaulted the worshipers with gunfire and meat cleavers.

Many others were wounded and four are in critical condition.

The terrorist attack took place in Har Hof a predominantly Orthodox neighborhood at the at the Kehilat Yaakov synagogue on Agasi Street.

The Murder victims were identified as Rabbi Moshe Twersky, the head of the Torat Moshe yeshiva, 59; 40-year-old  Rabbi Aryeh Kupinsky; 50-year-old Rabbi Kalman Levine; and 68-year-old Rabbi Avraham Shmuel Goldberg(HY"D). Rabbi Kupinsky, Rabbi Levine and Rabbi Twersky were all American citizens, while Rabbi Goldberg was a British subject. A Druze policeman, 30-year-old Master Sergeant Zidan Sif subsequently died of his wounds as well, and all Israel will mourn and honor him.

The killers stormed the synagogue at 7 AM local time. There was no warning and no way for the victims to defend themselves.The rabbis were murdered during the sacred prayer of Shimoneh Esrei, with siddurim (prayer books) in their hands and their tefillum on.

Eye witness Ya'akov Amos said: 'The terrorist moved to within a metre of me then started shooting. One, two, three, bang, bang, bang. I immediately hit the ground and tried to protect myself with a prayer stand. He kept screaming 'Allah hu'Akbar'.

 

There was blood everywhere, so much that one of the medical workers slipped in it and broke his leg.

The international reaction was interesting. Even U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed shocked, with his voice quavering. He even used the "T" word and called for an end to incitement against Jews.

Phillip Hammond, Britain's Foreign Secretary contented himself with a bloodless statement that 'both sides' should seek to 'reduce tension.' President Obama, of course, said much the same thing. Somehow, I doubt they would have merely talked about both sides reducing tension if four imams had been murdered by a Jew and Qu'rans profaned in this way.

Israel's economics minister Naftali Bennett was interviewed by the BBC today, and provides us with another indication of exactly how sick and depraved Britain has become when it comes to Israel and the Jews.



(just a hint - when Bennett mentions Abu Mazen, he is using Mahmoud Abbas's nom de guerre, the terrorist name he used as Arafat's second-in-command.)

Notice how the interviewer doesn't even address the issue of Abbas inciting terrorism, but pulls the case of an Arab bus driver who died yesterday, as though that made the savage murder of four Jews at prayer legitimate. That Arab driver, by the way, had a full investigation and an autopsy done on him and there is no doubt he committed suicide. Unlike the Palestinian Authority, Israel jails murderers no matter who they are.

I really felt like saying 'Kol Hakavod' when Bennett held up a picture of one of the victims, which the interviewer hastily told him to put down lest he upset the gentle sensibilities of her viewers. I think it is absolutely essential to do just that - to let the British public see what their government is funding and supporting. And I hope it upsets them to the point of utter shame.

At the end of the interview, Bennett says that Britain is going to have to make a choice of whether they support the Free World or not. As I'm sure Bennett knows, the British Government has already made that choice.Which is why, perhaps, they feel compelled to put up with soldiers being beheaded in broad daylight and no go areas for police and non-Muslims in London and other large British cities.



The murderers were both killed in a shootout with police at the scene. They were Ghassan and Oday Abu Jamal from the Jabal Mukaber neighborhood in east Jerusalem. Needless to say, they were acclaimed as heroes and martyrs by all the factions of the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians.







 "We responded with shouts of joy when we received the news about their deaths," Ala'a Abu Jamal said of his cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal to Yedioth Aharonoth. "People here distributed candies to guests who visited us, and there was joy for the martyrs."

In a message published on its official new website Al-Resalah, Hamas said the attack was “a quality development in fighting the occupation. We highly value the heroism of its operatives.” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri praised the attack on Qatari news channel Al-Jazeera as “heroic,” calling for more attacks of the same kind.

 Hamas MP Mushir Al-Masri happily wrote on Twitter that “Jerusalem has nothing but men who love martyrdom. The heroes of the knife are in Jerusalem. The heroes of the run-over [car attacks] are in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem men take revenge.”

And he posted this on his Facebook page:

The Arab killer is asking 'Where are they hiding?" Needless to say, in spite of what this cartoon shows none of the worshipers were armed.

And Fatah? Mahmoud Abbas, AKA Abu Mazen issued a 'condemnation' that wasn't one. In a statement (in English, not Arabic)it said that “The Palestinian presidency" condemns violence "from whatever source" and "demands an end to the invasions of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the provocations of the Settlers."

In other words, 'So sorry, but unless you surrender Jerusalem to us expect more of the same.'

This is the same Mahmoud Abbas who accused Jews of “contaminating” Al-Aqsa Mosque last week, who just a few days ago was telling his people, in Arabic, to 'defend Jerusalem' by any means necessary. This is the same Mahmoud Abbas who said nothing when Fatah published cartoons and Facebook posts encouraging terrorist attacks on Jews and “days of rage” to defend the 'threatened' Al-Aqsa.

Tawfik Tirawi, former chief of the Palestinian General Security in the West Bank and a member of Fatah’s Central Committee made it even plainer, and in Arabic. Today he told a radio station in Hebron that the attack was “nothing but a reaction to the recent crimes of the occupation and the settlers in occupied Jerusalem and across the nation. The threats of the occupation against our people and the Palestinian leadership, represented by the president, will only increase our efforts in safeguarding our rights.”

His remarks were reprinted on Fatah's official Facebook page.

I should make something clear here. This is not the fault of Abbas, or Hamas, or any of the Arabs who identify themselves as Palestinians.

It is the fault of the Israeli government.

A significant number of the Palestinians are simply acting as they have always acted since the 1920's, and these tendencies were unleashed even further once Arafat and the PLO were allowed in to take over after Oslo.



Israeli governments since Oslo have always allowed themselves to be pressured to ignore these instances of sheer horror...to release  convicted murderers, to make concessions to the terrorist entities on Israel's borders, and most of all to avoid  finishing them off entirely when their violence and bloodshed mandated a response. This has been especially true since Barack Obama, who styles himself as the Palestinian's very own community organizer entered the White House.

Is it any wonder that this sort of thing continues to happen? Is it really so puzzling that after allowing Hamas to continue in Gaza and maintaining any kind of relationship with Abbas and the PLO once they allied themselves openly with Hamas that they would resort back to Arafat's tactics?

Yasser Arafat himself outlined for his followers what this war was really about. On Jordanian TV, right after signing the Oslo Accords he was criticized for signing a peace agreement with the Jews. He responded by reminding his audience of the Peace of Hubidiyeh, a treaty Mohammed made with the Quraysh tribe that he violated as soon as he was strong enough to massacre them, a story every Muslim knows. And then he outlined exactly what this war was about, saying that "either the Jews will push us into the sea or we will push them into the sea."

Arafat, the leaders of Hamas and numerous members of Fatah have sung the same songs for years. Is it their fault that Israeli governments for years have refused to take them seriously?



It is time they did.

The violence in Jerusalem can be curtailed, not by more security patrols and not by putting guards in front of every synagogue and public building but by teaching the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians that there are real world consequences for their actions.

As you may have noticed, no matter how much innocent Jewish blood is spilled, it is always Israel who is advised to 'reduce tensions' and 'avoid provocation.'  It is always Israel who is castigated for building homes for its people, in spite of over an estimated 40,000 illegal Arab-built structures in East Jerusalem, and an entire city  being constructed from scratch with EU and US Aid money that encroaches on Israeli communities in Area C of Judea.

This is the first time I have ever heard John Kerry mention the constant hatred being spewed by the mosques, media and schools in both Gaza and in the PLO occupied areas of Judea and Samaria as something counterproductive to any real peace. And even his condemnation of this horror as well as the other ones from the UN and EU that will no doubt be voiced are maddeningly hollow..because they still fund and support this evil.

As Naftali Bennett said, they are going to have to choose sides, and that particularly applies to the United States.But Israel has some choices to make as well.

Are they going to settle for the status quo and a war of attrition that favors Israel's enemies? Or are they are they going to do what's necessary to end it and win the right to live peacefully?

I've always favored Israel simply delineating its own borders and annexing that land,along with a transfer of populations to the respective sides of those borders. But at the very least Israel should answer every terrorist attack with the outright annexation of more land in Judea and Samaria, showing the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians that they are there to stay, and that attacks on Israel cost them dearly. Build on the land, and call the EU's bluff. In the unlikely event that they follow through on their threats to indulge in sanctions,they have a lot more to lose than Israel does right now economically.

When there are violent riots, as there were in Jabal Mukaber today, simply arrest the perpetrators,take away their Israeli ID cards and expel them to Gaza or to Area A for Abbas to deal with.Aside from providing real world consequences, it will also separate those Arabs who like the good life in Israel and are willing to live in peace (and there are more of them them you think) from those whom want to poison the well with violence.

Make the disarmament of Hamas an iron clad condition for any further reconstruction aid, especially since Hamas is already diverting money and materials to remaking its terrorist infrastructure. Both the EU and Secretary of State Kerry have given lip service to the importance of disarming Hamas for peace. Hold them to it.

If the Muslim Waqf that is in charge of the al-Aqsa Mosque continues to incite riots and stone throwing on the Temple Mount and refuses to allow Jews to enjoy it peacefully, simply explain to them that the next time it happens the police will respond in force, the Waqf's control of al-Aqsa and the Mount will be ended, the members of the Waqf expelled from Israel and the mosque shut down.

And allow Israelis to sue the PLO and Hamas in Israelis courts for damages to property and person, taking the judgments out of the tax monies Israel collects for the PLO.

These are the sort of steps that are ultimately going to defeat the Third Intifada. It's long past time to treat Hamas/Fatah like the hostile entity it is. And if it becomes necessary to dismantle the Palestinian Authority, so be it.

I am tired of seeing headlines like I saw today, tired of seeing the Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians celebrating each new atrocity, tired of seeing world leaders being complicit with this evil.

And I am especially tired of Israel accepting this hypocrisy. I am sick to death of it. It is one thing to be the Jew among nations, but something else entirely to live on your knees and internalize it.

Selah.

Kerry's Talks With Iran Deadlocked As Iran Calls For Israel's Destruction

 

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry chaired a four hour meeting with an Iranian delegation that included Iran’s deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohamad Javad Zarif.

Secretary Kerry's 'agreement that was never and agreement' on Iran's rogue nuclear weapons program continues to fall apart at the seams.

The Iranians have flat outrejected any limits on their enrichment program (and let's remember, a nuclear energy program doesn't require enrichment). The Iranians have also refused to consider reducing the size and output of their centrifuges that can enrich uranium both to levels needed for reactor fuel or for nuclear warheads.

 

According to the Associated Press Kerry caved and promptly put a new U.S. proposal on the table that is based on removing piping connecting the centrifuges...as if that piping can't be reconnected in between inspections!

The Iranians are also adamant about any inspection of their military base at Parchin where there's substantial evidence that nuclear weapons research has gone on, nor will Iran make any concessions on its fortified nuclear facility at Fordo or on its heavy water reactor at Arak. The Arak reactor has no peacetime application whatsoever, and the reactor can be used to produce plutonium, an alternate path to nuclear weapons.

You may remember that last November, Secretary Kerry was claiming that the Iranians had agreed to suspend operations at Arak.The Iranians were quite prompt to reply they said no such thing, just one of the many details Kerry and President Obama claimed the Iranians agreed to that they absolutely didn't, and something Iran said it wouldn't ever make concessions on. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime got over $12.5 billion in badly needed funds and the dismantling of what was left of the sanctions that was years in the making for this faux 'agreement' anyway. As I said at the time, it's a wonder Secretary Kerry returned with his pants and shoes on after that bit of negotiating....

The next topic of conversation was the Islamic State. As I reported earlier, the Iranian response to Kerry's attempt to get them on board as part of President Obama's coalition was pretty much along these lines:

 

Deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi refused the idea of any coordination of efforts with the Great Satan, he did say that his government was in agreement with Western powers on the evil  nature of Islamic State, saying,  “we couldn’t agree more that ISIL [Islamic State] is neither Islamic, nor a state.”  Most Sunnis, not just Islamic State feel the same way about Shi'ites, of course.


But they did have a unique suggestion for Kerry.

Araghchi said that Israel’s actions in Gaza can “only be called genocide,” and said that Israel's existence was a rallying cry for Islamic State. So Islamic State's destruction and demise must thus be tied to “an end to the Israeli occupation of Arab lands.”

Since the Iranians (and the Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians) have said many times they consider all of Palestine 'occupied Arab lands' and Iran funds and arms genocidal groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, there's no mistaking what Aragchi meant. It's a reprise of the old Iranian call to wipe Israel off the map.And keep in mind, Aragchi isn't just speaking on his own. That doesn't happen in a regime like Iran's. This is official policy.



In fact, if the 'Palestinian Authority’s ambassador' to Iran, Salah Al-Zawawi is to be believed, Iran has already begun shipping weaponry and missiles to Fatah as well:

“I would like to reiterate my gratitude to the Islamic Republic of Iran for the training, financing, and weapons it has provided us, as well as for its political and diplomatic positions regarding Palestine. Iran has helped us to attain our great victory,”

“I am not saying that Palestine will be liberated tomorrow, but we have made real strides on the path to liberation. A missile with a 200 kilogram warhead will carry a warhead of 100 tons in the future, because weapons change as men change. We just need to cross the scientific threshold to get to our goal.”

Ah yes, the old goal of pushing the Jews into the sea. And perhaps later after the missiles are developed, a spare nuke, once the Iranians develop one? Just for the record, a top Iranian military commander recently confirmed that the Islamic Republic is sending weapons to Fatah.

Israeli PM Netanyahu may one day be sorry he didn't defy President Obama and take out Hamas when he had the opportunity. A three front war with Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah as adversaries is not out of the question at all.

And Secretary Kerry? There's no indication that he voiced any objections to this call for Israel's ethnic cleansing by Iran. Not that he agrees with it per se, but he appears to be far more focused on what concessions he can make to Iran to get some kind of piece of paper signed before November 24th, the new deadline that was agreed to after the Iranians ran out the clock on July 20th, the official deadline. Iran received an additional bribe of a mere $2.8 million to keep these 'talks' going after that fiasco.

Meanwhile, the centrifuges are turning and Iran hasn't given up anything. Nor will they. They know whom they're dealing with.