The EU Is At War With Israel

 

It's official. For all intents and purposes, the EU is at war with Israel.Some of the members, particularly in Eastern and central Europe aren't participating, but most of the EU is.

It isn't a shooting war, but an increasing effort to marginalize the Jewish State so it can be destroyed..

The EU supports anti-Israel NGOs financially,and continues to fund the PLO even though it uses much of those funds to pay terrorists for murdering Israeli civilians, even though that financial support frees up funds to be used in what the PLO refers to as 'operations.'

Only Israel has fruits, vegetables and fresh flowers specially labeled as being from 'the Occupied West Bank.'

Led by Angela Merkel and Frances Emanuel Macron, the EU has consistently evaded U.S. sanctions against Iran and continued to observe the farcical Iran 'deal' of Barack Hussein Obama. The EU has done this even though Iran has been quite clear of its genocidal intentions towards Israel.

And it was none other than Germany's Angela Merkel who pressured Eastern and Central European countries with good relationships with Israel not to relocate their embassies in Jerusalem or face her wrath.

The founding director of the European Coalition for Israel in Brussels, Tomas Sandell, reported that  that the  German Chancellor  waged a strenuous campaign to stop central and eastern European countries from moving their capitals to Jerusalem..

 “I have spoken to many Germans these last few days in Brussels,” he said. “They are not aware of this, and all of them would be shocked that all of the countries in the European Union today would want to block an embassy move to Jerusalem, not only for your own country, but for other countries that have the conviction [that] this is the right thing to do, the only country to do would be Germany. This is a big shock.”

According to Sandell, most of  Merkel’s calls to put the squeeze on European leaders happened when “many of the nations were seriously considering moving their embassies.”

This isn't a shock to me at all,but let's continue.

Germany also implemented  the marking of Israeli goods from 'disputed territories' in 2015. Not only did Germany start the labeling, but Merkel used her influence to get other Eu nations to do the same.The idea, of course is to further isolate Israel as an 'occupying power.'

As recently as a few days ago, the EU showed that it had chosen sides against Israel. When American U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley tried to discuss aspects of President Trump's proposed peace plan, they essentially brushed it off. Let's look at their official statement and then dissect what it really means.

After the usual horse manure about a 'just peace 'based on international law, relevant UN resolutions and previous agreements', here's what they said:

  "The EU is truly convinced that the achievement of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital of both States, that meets Israeli and Palestinian security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation and resolves all final status issues, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2334 and previous agreements, is the only viable and realistic way to end the conflict and to achieve just and lasting peace."

Let's translate this, shall we?

 

Resolution 2334 is the one former President Barack Hussein Obama engineered when the Security Council had a majority of anti-Israel countries on it and then made sure the US abstained so it would pass, his final hateful attack on Israel. Here's what it stipulated, and it's an  'anti-zionist' wet dream.

First of all, it negates every Israeli community as illegal outside the pre-1967 lines and gives East Jerusalem to the PLO. This creates 580,000 homeless Israeli refugees, bars them forever from all their holy sites, and puts all of Israel's central plain and its airports in easy missile and mortar by giving Israel's sworn enemies the high ground.

 

Not only that, it also  takes away any notion of security from what's left of Jerusalem that the resolution is willing to leave to Israel. The Israelis themselves had previous experience with this in 1967, when Jordan's King Hussein announced his entry into the war by shelling civilians and having snipers fire on West Jerusalem

Even worse, there would be nothing to stop Iran from supplying deadlier and deadlier missiles and arms to both the PLO and Hamas. With the Jordan Valley out of Israeli control, there would be nothing to stop Iran from moving troops, missile launchers and armor  to Israel's new borders.

Essentially, what the EU was saying to Ambassador Haley is that they weren't going to support President Trump's plan whatever it was, that Israel should be moved to indefensible borders, and that its enemies should have every strategic advantage so they can finally destroy it.

2334 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 then of course, there's that notion of 'occupation.' That term has always been used to describe one country forcibly invading and taking control of another country's sovereign territory. And sovereign territory means land inside another established country's recognized borders, like Saddam Hussein occupying Kuwait or the US occupying Germany or Japan.

So we have to ask the question...which country's sovereign territory is Israel 'occupying?'

It can't be Jordan. Yes, Jordan illegally occupied Judea, Samaria (AKA The West Bank) and East Jerusalem in the 1948 war for 19 years after ethnically cleansing the Jewish population in this area,  but the UN never recognized these areas as Jordanian territory, Israel took it back in the Six Day war after Jordan attacked them and Jordan later gave up all claims to this area as part of their peace treaty with Israel. So it isn't Jordan Israel's occupying.

And it can't be 'Palestine' either. It never existed as a sovereign nation with established borders at all. Owning a house in say, Pennsylvania does not make it and maybe your yard a sovereign country, now does it?

So there really is no 'occupation.' According to the San Remo Accords between the League of Nations (the UN of its day) and Britain in 1922, the 22% of the Palestine Mandate that includes Judea and Samaria and what is now Israel was supposed to be the Jewish State, while the 78% of it that's now Jordan was supposed to be the Arab State. It's the only partition of the area both sides ever agreed on, and it was reaffirmed in Article 80 of the UN Charter.

What the EU and their pals at the UN are doing is pretty simple to figure out. They're simply doing what  Mark Twain predicted they would back in 1899 when the  Zionist movement was  beginning. Here's what he had to say  in a famous article on Jews he did in Harper's Magazine:

  I am not objecting; but if that concentration of the cunningest brains in the world were going to be made in a free country (bar Scotland), I think it would be politic to stop it. It will not be well to let the race find out its strength. If the horses knew theirs, we should not ride any more. 

Want further proof of how the EU has it in for Israel? The recent attempt to simply pass a resolution  condemning unprovoked terrorism  by Hamas against Israel in the UN General Assembly failed dismally once Israel's enemies in the UN insisted on a two thirds majority instead of the simple majority Ambassador Haley wanted.

You know what did pass? A resolution sponsored by Ireland calling for 'the achievement, without delay”  of the implementing  of U.N. resolution 2334.

Since 2334 was a series 6 Resolution that has no status as international law,  Israel promptly rejected it, as any country not interested in national suicide would.But thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, it remains a framework for countries that want Israel gone.

And make no mistake,it definitely is about the Jews. Much of what constitutes the EU will never forgive them for Auschwitz. Or for being so successful in a region noted for failed states.

Fixing Gaza...Permanently

Since March 30th, much of the world's press and a chunk of the so-called 'international community' has been focusing on a series of what can only be called violent riots emanating from Gaza against Israel's border.

Of course the media refers to them as protests, and the rioters as protestors and the UN as well as the usual channels refer to what has happened as 'war crimes.' So as a beginning, it's perhaps helpful to describe these so-called protests and let the reader judge.

Israel understandably has a border fence with Gaza, a precaution against the numerous terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and Iranian proxy Islamic Jihad that have occurred in the past. The protests weren't composed of people carrying signs and making a few speeches. They were mob attacks on Israel's border, specifically on points Hamas had advised the mob were vulnerable. The mobs attacked the fence directly with Molotov cocktails, small arms fire, axes, wire cutters, explosives and knives. They used women and children as human shields, and had support from Hamas missiles and mortar shells. In other words, this was an attack, an act of war carried out against a sovereign nation.

The IDF responded the way any country's military would faced by this attack on their borders. After warnings to the mob in Arabic not to approach the border fence and tear gas didn't stop them, the IDF soldiers opened fire when the mob charged the fence in response. It is a testimony to the cool heads, marksmanship and professionalism of the Tzahal that there were so few casualties, and that even Hamas admits almost all of them were Hamas or Islamic Jihad members. If a group of Jewish women and children had approached Gaza with an actual protest asking Hamas to stop firing missiles and mortar rounds at Israeli towns, does anyone doubt Hamas would have killed every one of them and celebrated afterwards?

Hamas's Leader Ismail Haniyeh has made it clear that the riots and assaults of the fence will continue 'until Jerusalem is liberated.' And true to his command, the riots have continued, usually of Fridays after the imams have had a chance to stir up the mobs.

Another assault has been launched from the air. Incendiary kites, balloons and even inflated condoms have been launched towards Israel, resulting in fires that have already destroyed hundreds of dunams of Israeli land. One balloon containing an explosive device and a booby trapped detonator attached to the string was launched to be landed near an Israeli kindergarten only a half hour before the children were scheduled to arrive for class. Here's what it looked like:



The leftist press reacted as expected. The AP, for instance in an article I won't bother to link to had a whole sob story about how there's such limited electricity nowadays and that it was making medical procedures like tending the wounds of would-be jihadis so difficult. Of course, what this Hamas PR piece didn't mention is that the electricity in Gaza is so limited because a Hamas missile accidentally hit one of the Israeli towers that provides electricity to Hamasastan. And to add to the smell of what the AP and others are peddling, the Israelis aren't able to make repairs because of the danger to Israeli repair crew.

The UN also played its traditional role. An extremely biased UNSC resolution damning Israel for 'war crimes' was unable to pass thanks to a U.S. veto, but the same resolution passed in the General Assembly, 120-8, with 45 abstentions. About half of the EU voted for the resolution, including Spain, France and Belgium, with Switzerland, New Zealand, Iceland and Norway also voting in favor. The UK and Germany abstained. Of the major U.S. allies, only the Australians had the guts and decency to vote against this travesty openly...Advance Australia Fair indeed.





An amendment advanced by U.S Ambassador Nikki Haley condemning Hamas actually passed by a majority, but was disallowed by General Assembly president Miroslav Lajcak. While the resolution has the legal force of a stale piece of take out pizza, the fact that the UN was willing to vote to not condemn a clear aggressor against a democracy, and to actually vote in favor of establishing 'an international protection force for the occupied Palestinians' tells us quite a bit of what the UN has become. As Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon put it, if the UN approved the Palestinian resolution, “it will have signed in writing its unequivocal support for terrorism against Israel.”

“Let us not pretend,” Danon said. “If ISIS were to attack Stockholm tomorrow, ISIS would be held responsible for the attack. If al-Qaeda assaulted Paris, the UN would issue the strongest condemnation of al-Qaeda.”

“Only when Hamas attacks Israel does the UN seek to blame Israel.”

Well they did approve it, and a large part of the UN does approve terrorist attacks on Israel. And they have for a very long time.

So, how to fix this sorry situation?

Obviously the Israelis cannot depend on any cooperation at the UN. Nor can they depend on Hamas to stop attacking them or trust any negotiations they make with them. The latest laugher was Hamas's offer for 'comprehensive negotiation.' You know what Hamas proposed? They will return the remains of two Israeli servicemen,Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul they've held since the 2014 Operation Protective Edge. And they will return two kidnapped Israeli civilians Avera Mengistu and Hisham al-Sayed, prisoners who the Red Cross has not even been permitted to visit.

What do they want in exchange? Oh, just to build a seaport and an airport. When you realize the Iran has now joined Turkey as Hamas's paymasters, it's easy to figure out they don't exactly want these things for the tourist trade, but to fly and import weapons and missiles. The Iranians are particularly noted for using civilian airplanes for this purpose. And these attacks on Israel's border are largely at Iran's request, to open up another front against Israel and distract from Iranian attempts to militarize Syria.

And no mention of an actual peace treaty, of course. Israel is never going to be able to negotiate anything like that with people who would use a pretty, kid friendly balloon as a booby trap in hopes of murdering  Jewish children.

What Israel has done to date since the Hamas takeover is to wall Gaza off, destroy the terrorist tunnels into Israel and do their best not to allow Iranian heavy weapons to get into Hamas's hands. Whenever the missile firings and mortar shelling get too intense, Israel engages in  what they refer to as 'mowing the grass' to take out as many Hamas military assets as possible and calm things down until the next time. Followed, of course by the usual media and UN hysterics,

This strategy actually helps Hamas, who care very little about the people they rule or about peace with Israel.It has become, essentially a war of attrition which favors Hamas.

I have a different solution, and it's one I would implement if it were my decision to make.

Wars are won (or lost) when certain things occur. To end a war or the active threat of war, one side occupies enemy territory and subdues it while protecting its own. Or  one side simply destroys an enemy's capacity to wage war and forces them to seek terms of surrender and peaceful coexistence.

Of course, not all wars are decisively won or lost, but that is how a war in which one side is victorious ends.

My proposal is that Israel treat this like the war that it is and do what's necessary to end it. It would not be without cost, but is entirely possible. And certainly an improvement on the status quo.

First, I would inform the civilian population to leave to avoid undue hardship. Then, I would send the IDF over the borders, after announcing publicly to Hamas and the world that any hospitals, mosques, civilian dwellings or schools from which any missiles were fired would be considered  legitimate military targets and dealt with accordingly. After all, the UN is going to condemn anything Israel does anyway, so it makes sense to deal with this Hamas tactic properly, once and for all.

I would then shut off all electricity and water to Gaza. which is now provided by Israel. Men have survived for centuries without electricity, but never for very long without water. The IDF could simply dig in and besiege Gaza City and Khan Yunis while the air force and attack choppers took out the missile launching sites and anything else that was appropriate. Hamas would eventually have to come out to either face the IDF's firepower or to surrender.

After vetting them, the Israelis could definitely let a large part of the civilian population flee to Egyptian Sinai and then close off the Rafah crossing while turning over the Hamas small fry that were captured directly to Egypt's Mukhabarat for a nice, leisurely interrogation. Getting their hands on bunch of Hamas operatives is something I'm sure Egypt's al-Sisi would appreciate, especially when they spilled the beans about their fellow Muslim Brotherhood comrades in Egypt. The Hamas leaders could be subjected to a nice sit down with the Shin Bet, who are noted for their hospitality and encouragement of interesting conversation in these situations. Most of the Hamas leaderrs could probably be turned over to the Egyptians afterwards. Sharing is caring, nachon?

At that point, the Israelis would control previously hostile territory, eliminating an Iran proxy and a probable war front. Mahmoud Abbas would certainly want it turned over to him and the corrupt PLO, but Israel could and should refuse outright, and annex the Gaza Strip. They could then start doing what Israelis seem to do so well, rebuilding and improving the mess, exactly what they did to Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War. There would be no more missiles from Gaza, and not much of a Hamas threat. Perhaps even some of the inhabitants from Gush Katif could resettle there, along with other Israelis. It could even become a haven for Arab and Middle East Christians and Yazedis, whose young men would become as good soldiers defending their new country as the Druse, Bedouin and Arab Christians have been. South Africa's Jews, who are increasingly under threat from the government of their native land might be another good source of population.

And Gaza itself? It would become what it could easily have been with different rulers, a second Singapore rife with trade and prosperity. While Egypt might whine a bit about a large part of Gaza's population settling in Sinai, the increased trade between Israel and Egypt, which Egypt badly needs would be a consolation. Egypt could also probably apply to the UN or elsewhere to get some support money for these new refugees.

The UN and the usual media clowns would go insane. But they do that anyway whenever Israel takes the least step to defend itself. They would never recognize Israel's annexation of Gaza, but so what? They don't even recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol, or Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, which is 50 years old. Some European nations might not accept products from Gaza, but there would be plenty of trade with Asia, Eastern Europe and the Arab world to make up the slack.

Wars end with victory. It's time this one did.

Forum: Should The U.S. Leave The UN?

Every Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question:Should The U.S. Leave The UN?

James Kirwan: Good question. I believe the US should leave the organization and turn the building into rent-controlled apartments on Turtle Bay to help alleviate the dearth of affordable apartments in NYC. I’d love to see the General Assembly turned into a food court: they could even keep the flags if they add Panda Express and Taco Bell.

The truth is the current administration could simply walk out of the organization. Nikki Haley would resign her position and the President and Secretary of State would refuse to submit her replacement. Since the position is appointment, there is nothing Congress could do about it.

If Congress wanted to support the move, it could defund the organization by submitting and approving legislation to the President to do that. During both Bush administrations the USA withheld dues to the organization, but succeeding presidents Clinton and Obama reversed those moves.

Such moves would be temporary. The next Democratic administration could simply return to the organization by paying the dues and appointing a UN Permanent Representative.

Permanently leaving the UN would be a major change in diplomatic policy, and major changes are difficult to get done in a huge, bureaucratic organization with checks and balances built in. There would be significant bureaucratic resistance to doing so, with every step likely fought in the courts. It would take years and require like-minded Democrats - something that I don’t see happening without a major screw up by the UN. And an organization that promotes anti-Semitism, protects child rapists, and is incapable of protecting villages from genocide or the world from a nuclear North Korea proves it has staying power after some pretty serious screw ups.

But the truth is that the UN has little clout and with each scandal it loses more. Perhaps the best solution from the perspective of those of us who want the USA to leave the UN is to ignore it and allow the organization to sink into complete irrelevance through its own mistakes.


Now Renting - Great Location and Excellent Views

Doug Hagin:WE should leave post haste frankly. The UN (Useless nations, as I call it) is a nest of miscreant nations which always seem to favor dictators and terrorists while bad mouthing the western nations. Especially the US and Israel.


Rob Miller: Why now? Why not 30 years ago?

The UN was a good idea on its face after WWII. Unfortunately, FDR, the first world leader to recognize the Soviet Union insisted that 'Uncle' Joe Stalin have a major seat at the table and a veto. President Truman had a whole host of Soviet sympathizers and outright spies like Alger Hiss advising him that he inherited from FDR's administration. So he likewise compounded this grave error, even giving Soviet satellites who were basically colonies of the USSR their own seats and votes. Big mistake...totalitarian dictatorships never play well with democracies. That of course opened the door for all sorts of dictatorships and failed states to destroy the original premise like termites while milking western democracies for all kinds of cash.

The UN Human Rights Commission(UNHRC) was always one of the laughable misnomers ever. It was constantly dominated by some of the most despotic countries in history, and it's main objective, really, was demonizing Israel which made it a great group to be part of as far as Barack Hussein Obama was concerned.

A year year after it was established, in 2007, the UNHRC passed what they called Permanent Agenda Item 7. What it did was to establish a separate standard for judging anything Israel did. It provided a platform to automatically 'investigate' Israel and condemn it for just about anything it did to defend itself, while taking for granted any Palestinian libel against Israel.

In other words, special standards for Jews and Israel and a different one for say, Iran, Venezuela or Pakistan. There's a word for that.

To show you how this worked in practice, out of 135 resolutions the UNHRC passed, 68 of them condemned Israel for 'human rights violations.' By contrast, Iran was mentioned just six times.

UN organizations like UNESCO and UNWRA operate on similar levels. They're all simply just money pits for the U.S. taxpayer.

We get nothing out of it, and nothing of any value whatsoever is accomplished based on the UN's original goals. There's no reason for America to stay in the UN.




Laura Rambeau Lee: With a total of 193 member nations, the United States is assessed 22% of the United Nations regular budget and 28% of its peace keeping budget, which they calculate as our “fair share” contribution to this organization. This translates to over eight billion dollars annually our government is taking of our hard earned tax money which is being turned over to be redistributed to other member nations as they see fit. The United Nations is at the forefront of the climate change hoax, which is a scheme to redistribute wealth from developed to developing countries. Even more insidious is the impact the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has on our educational system. What started out as the International Baccalaureate programme, a high school charter school, now has programs beginning in elementary school and continues through middle and high school. The agenda has been to promote cultural diversity and indoctrinating our youth to believe they are citizens of a global community. This is pure Marxist and collectivist ideology and it is being inserted into much of the curriculum to which our children are being exposed. We should absolutely pull ourselves and our money out of the United Nations and get the United Nations out of the United States.


Well, there it is!

Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the 'net. Take from me, you won't want to miss it.

Nikki Haley And What Today's UN Vote Really Meant

 

In response to agitation by the Palestinian Authority over President Trump's decision to recognize Israel's capitol and move the U.S. embassy there,the UN Security Council (UNSC) hurriedly put together a resolution criticizing it. The entire process was little more than bad Kabuki theater, since the U.S. said openly it would use its veto as one of the five permanent members. The other 14 members all voted for it.

A look at who these members are is illuminating:

PERMANENT MEMBERS

Britain, France, The U.S.A, China, The Russian Federation

NON PERMANENT MEMBERS

Bolivia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Sweden, Ukraine, and Uruguay.

Some of these countries are actively hostile towards Israel, especially but not exclusivelythe Muslim majority nations. Others have large groups of restive Muslims they need to appease, others have important trade relationships with the Muslim world and some have a combination of all three.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley correctly diagnosed this as an insult to the U.S., who hosts the UN on its soil and funds a disproportionate part of the organization's budget. Here's what she had to say:

“The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy. What we have witnessed here is an insult. It won’t be forgotten. It is one more example of the UN doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli Palestinian conflict."

Well, true enough. Israel at the UN remains the Jew among nations..despised, discriminated against for the most part and singled out as the chief evil in the world community. For instance, non-permanent members of the UNSC serve rotating terms. One nation that will never get a chance to serve on the UNSC is Israel, and that's deliberate because many countries in the region Israel was lumped in with don't even recognize its existence let alone go along with allowing Israel to serve.

What happened next is that Iran and Yemen advanced a resolution in the UN General Assembly, which allows no veto and where every member gets a vote. This one passed 128-9, with 33 abstentions and a pretty fair share of no-shows, as the chart below shows.





Again, there are certain patterns. For instance, you'll notice that all of the Western EU members with large numbers of violent restive Muslims they imported to their countries voted for this resolution,like the UK,France, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany. So did EU countries historically biased against Israel like Ireland and Norway. Most of the EU countries in Eastern Europe voted against it, abstained or simply didn't show up for the vote.

Most majority Muslim countries voted for it, as did most countries with a substantial Muslim population. But Turkmenistan did not. Neither did Kenya, which enjoys a very good relationship with Israel in terms of trade and security cooperation. India, which likewise has a great relationship with Israel voted for it, largely because of commercial interests and their large Muslim population.

So what does all this mean? Here's what today's UN vote really meant.

Absolutely nothing.

The same is true of the UNSC vote earlier.

Like all the other UN diktats involving Israel, this one is worth about as much as used toilet paper. Only Security Council resolutions with a Series 7 category mean anything or have any legal standing at all, and all the ones Israel has supposedly 'ignored' are Series 5 at best.

Fun fact...the UN, of course only abides by what it wants to, even when it comes to Series 7 resolutions that supposedly have consequences for violations.

In 2006, Israel had overcome a poor start in its war against Hezbollah once the always incompetent Ehud Olmert realized that he actually had to have a real plan rather than just sending the IDF into battle piecemeal with zero support. And a real professional soldier with command experience running things. So he told his far left Defense minister Amir Peretz to go hide somewhere and put Ehud Barack in charge. The IDF under his command was able to regroup , beat Hezbollah at its own game and advance to the Litani River, where they had Hezbollah in an iron ring. At that point, GW Bush's dysfunctional Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice stepped in and bullied Olmert into accepting a ceasefire.

As an incentive, Ms. Rice engineered a Series 7 UNSC resolution, UNSC #1701. It called for the disarming of Hezbollah, for UNFIL(United Nations Forces in Lebanon) forces on the border to stop Hezbollah from simply returning to its old bases in South Lebanon and sanctions and penalties on any country that rearmed Hezbollah and replenished it's missile arsenal. The resolution passed, and Olmert stupidly agreed, removing the IDF from Lebanon instead of finishing off Hezbollah once and for all.

The minute the IDF left and UNFIL took over, Hezbollah started creeping back to its old bases in the south, When Israel complained about UNFIL not abiding by UNSC 1701, the commander of what were mostly Pakistani troops simply laughed at the Israelis and replied that stopping Hezbollah from moving back to the border wasn't his job, no matter what any UNSC resolution said. Needless to say, Hezbollah was never disarmed, and Syria and Iran started re-arming Hezbollah and replenished Hezbollah's missile arsenal in record time.

The UN is dysfunctional at this stage for one simple reason. Democracies simply don't do well when they're dealing with despotic non-democratic countries...especially when two of those non-democracies have veto power and can obstruct and gum up the works at will. The minute the UN opened its doors to despotic countries like the Soviet Union, it was eventually doomed to failure. It would have been far better to allow these countries to address the UN in discussion but limit voting to the democracies. The scramble to admit brand new countries with 'strong men' in charge that followed WWII and introduced tribalism and ethnic blocs into the equation only sped up the process of decay.

As for today's shadow show, yes, what today's UN vote really meant was... nothing.

For a number of countries that have good relationships with Israel to abstain from this fiasco or even vote yes is simply a case of not buying trouble by indulging in a worthless display. And believe me both Trump and the Israelis know it. India, Japan, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria and Vietnam, all of whom have great relations with Israel voted yes, and like Canada, Australia, who also has great relations with Israel abstained. I guarantee you that countries friendly to Israel who felt compelled to vote yes or abstain talked to them about it beforehand. And of course, Israel isn't going to abide by it anyway.

Even voting on this nonsense one way or the other is giving it more importance than it actually has, although I wouldn't be surprised if Trump administers some puppy training to some of the 'yes' voters in a few cases. Because it is an insult, to tell America who or what it can recognize and where it can put its embassies.

And when you deliberately insult someone, there are certain results. Especially when that someone is your landlord and paymaster.

Oh, and those nations who voted no, abstained from voting or the 21 nations didn’t cast a vote? Ambassador Haley is giving them a party. There are certain results that come from supporting the U.S. too.

An American In Babylon - Trump's UN Speech

 

President Trump's UN speech attracted a fair amount of controversy among the chattering classes. It shouldn't have.

The United Nations has become a byword for useless, dysfunctional bureaucracy a mere 72 years after its founding.

Like Belshazzar's feast, it spends lavishly and conducts itself with opulence, but is rotted through with corruption and does little of any value while squatting in mordant self satisfaction.

Leave it to President Donald J. Trump to point out the wrong direction the UN has traveled since its founding in the aftermath of two devastating world wars, and to challenge it to change direction and become the force for good it was intended to be.



The president called for the UN and its members to reverse course, and to become what the UN was supposed to become on its inception...a group of sovereign, independent nations who prized freedom, democracy and peace and were willing to work together to promote them and to take action against rogue nations who threatened those ideals. If you read the original UN charter, you get a sense of just how far the UN today has removed itself from what it says.

Scandals like 'oil for food' where even the Secretary General's son was implicated in money laundering for Saddam Hussein to avoid UN sanctions abound. Countries like Iran routinely threaten genocide. And violate with impunity even UN Security Council series 7 resolutions like UNSC 1701, which called for the disarming of terrorist group Hezbollah and prohibiting UN members from rearming them. Iran and Syria rearmed Hezbollah without incurring any penalty whatsoever.

UN peacekeeping forces are more noted for trading food supplies for enforced prostitution, ignoring their supposed duties and allowing violence against civilians than for fulfilling their actual missions.

That's exactly why President Trump quoted Harry Truman, who stressed that the success of the United Nations depended on the “independent strength of its members.”

And unlike his predecessor, President Trump was unafraid to voice this simple truth;

“The United States of America,” Trump said, “has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.”

And our president was equally honest about confronting thoe rogue nations who threaten peace and security. He called out the disgusting regime of Kim Jong-un in North Korea, saying thatthe patience of the United States is great, but not inexhaustible. Asthe president explained, If North Korea persists in its policy of nuclear blackmail, the United States “will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” He continued: “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”

Needless to say, the Leftist press worldwide fainted away collectively at that. But what President Trump said was the simple truth. The same is true about what President Trump had to say about the equally rogue, criminal regime of Iran, one of the world's biggest sponsors of terrorism, a foe of America who was openly complicit in 9/11.

The UN's ignoring of the Iranian regime's march towards nuclear weapons is so ingrained that they aren't even making an attempt to have it look like they're doing something. Not only has Iran has prohibited the UN from any inspection of their military facilities where there's been clear indications of manufacturing and testing nuclear weapons components, but the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog now allows Iran to self inspect their nuclear facilities that the UN is allowed to get a glimpse of. To accuse the IAEA and the UN of gross negligence whenit comes to Iran is a gross understatement.

You see, President Trump wasn't just giving a display of American resolve. This was a direct challenge to the UN, plain and simple. The UN, after all is supposed to be the forum where dangerous regimes like Iran and North Korea are supposed to be addressed and dealt with. While Trump was quite clear that America could handle these rogue regimes on their own, He said it would be far better if the UN actually did what it was supposed to do and dealt with these major threats to world peace. “If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few,” Trump said in another memorable line, “then evil will triumph.”

Trump even had the intestinal fortitude to address Socialism.

No ideology has ever been so discredited by the evidence of history, but like a serially cheating wife or husband still offers hope to a long suffering spouse that this time, it will really be different. Except, of course, it never is.

Trump used the UN's failure to address the human tragedy now going on in Venezuela, once one of the richest countries on earth where Maduro's socialist regime is literally starving its population to death. It wasn't so long ago the Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and other Leftists were using Hugo Chavez and Venezuela as an example of how well socialism could work. Now, as the once rich country descends into poverty and chaos, they don't mention Venezuela any more.

“The problem in Venezuela,” Trump said, “is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”

So how did President Trump's speech go over? To most of the delegates of the UN, not very well. Being publicly unmasked like that is the last thing they wanted, let alone being challenged to make the UN what it was created to be. And of course, Trump's usual political enemies in the press and in the Democrat party went predictably ballistic. But as usual, the president has hit another bulls eye when it come to talking to the American people and to friends of freedom everywhere.

Speaking truth to power is a Leftist cliche', but that is exactly what President Trump's UN speech did, in one of his finest moments.

US UN Ambassador Nikki Haley Rips The UNSC's Anti-Israel Bias

 

America's new UN Ambassador Nikki Haley did a press conference after her first UN Security Council meeting, and she had a few things to say about the UN's disgraceful obsession with Israel:



Among other things, she made a point of emphasizing the U.S. alliance with Israel and saying point blank that the U.S. will never repeat "the terrible mistake of Resolution 2334." That of course was Barack Hussein Obama's parting, hateful slap at Israel, his support for a one sided, anti-semitic diktat attempting to sidestep the direct negotiations required by both Oslo and the Road Map, force Israel back to unsafe borders and re-divide Jerusalem.

What Ambassador Haley is doing is putting the UNSC on notice that things have changed in Washington and the days of an anti-Israel administration are over.

An excellent beginning. It's about time.

The UN Moves From 'Anti-Zionist' To Anti-Semitism

 

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)passed a resolution last week that nullified all Jewish and Christian ties and connections to the Western Wall (The Kotel) The Temple Mount, The Ma'Harat Machpelah (The Cave Of The Patriarchs, where Avraham and Sarah are buried) as well as Rachel's Tomb and other holy sites revered by Jews the world over for centuries.

The resolution not only erased any Judeo-Christian connection to these sites, but referred to them by their Muslim names, usually derived from the names of mosques that were built over them or near them centuries later during the brief Arab conquest. Here's how ridiculous this sounds:



This abomination also referred to all of East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as 'occupied Jerusalem' and Israel as the 'occupying power.' It also 'deeply condemned' Israeli 'aggressions and illegal measures against the Awqaf Department and its personnel, and against the freedom of worship.'

'Aggressions?' 'Freedom of Worship?' You mean like this?



In spite of what the caption says, those stones are also used to target Jews worshiping below at the Kotel. This is how the Israelis are rewarded for doing something they had no imperative to do other than trying to seek peace by sharing these holy sites with the Muslims. So it's freedom of worship, all right. For Muslims and only Muslims.

Yes, believe it or not, after the massacres that drove the Jews out of Hebron, after the Arab attempt to commit genocide in 1948, after the 19 year occupation by Jordan that denied Jews any access to this holy place, one of the first thing the Israelis did was to attempt to share these shrines and the Cave of The Patriarchs shrine with the Muslim Arabs whom call themselves 'Palestinians', and who likewise claim Abraham as a father.

Israel's reward for this unbelievable generosity was repeated desecration of the shrine by the Arabs and of course, constant incidents of terrorism and murder, including the deliberate shooting by a PA sniper of 10-month-old Shalhevat Pas in her stroller.

UNESCO has along history of anti-Israel rulings and activities. After they crossed a final red line by breaking their own rules and allowing a non-existent country named 'Palestine' to join as a full member, the U.S.  and several other countries cut funding for the agency, which President Barack Hussein Obama restored after his 2012 re-election.

Voting in favor were: Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chad, China, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan and Vietnam.

Voting against were: Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, The Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States

Abstaining were: Albania, Argentina, Cameroon, El Salvador, France, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, India, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Nepal, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and Nevis, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Ukraine.

Absent were: Serbia and Turkmenistan.

Israelis on all sides of the political spectrum and yes, many non-Israeli Jews including (surprise, surprise) in America were outraged, even many of those on the Left.

So what does this mean in the real world

Even the head of UNESCO, Irina Bokova received death threats after publicly criticizing this resolution. As we know by now, that's how Islam plays the game. Not only doesn't Islam not play well with others, they want the others entirely out of the playground...or else.

Mexico's envoy to UNESCO, Andres Roemer who is Jewish was fired from his post over his reluctance to vote for this atrocity and his attempt to force a revote over Mexico's decision (along with Brazil) to change their yes vote to 'abstain.'

So, what does this mean in real life?

First, the Israelis not only aren't going to comply with this, but it underlines for them the futility of any kind of negotiated settlement. Area A of Judea and Samaria is entirely under Arab control and so is Gaza, without a single Jew being present in either place.And the Israelis have bent over backwards to be fair in allowing Muslim access to these sites. But if Israel is still being referred to as 'the occupying power' by the UN at this point, why should believe that any concessions they make are going to change that no matter how much land they give up? Why bother?

The truth is that the entire 'occupation' label is pure fiction because no such country as 'Palestine' ever existed and it had no sovereignty as a state over anything, not in 1922, not in 1948, not in 1967, never. No other country would be considered an occupying power in the circumstances except Israel, the Jew among nations. But if the notion of perpetual 'occupation' is so deeply ingrained that the UN continues to abuse it, why would Israelis expect it to ever disappear no matter how much land for 'peace' they give up?

So this is merely yet another attempt to try and legitimize this nonsense in what passes for 'international law' in certain quarters. At least in Turtle Bay.

Second, this is just a run up to a coming UN Security resolution regarding not just the erasing of Judeo-Christian ties to the holy sites but all of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. Those areas are now to be Judenrein and ceded to Islam and 'Palestine.'

In deference to President Obama and Secretary John Kerry who have been involved in the planning stages, this one will come after the 2016 elections no matter who wins, during Obama's lame duck period, a parting shot at Israel.

The United States voted against the UNESCO resolution because it's election time. But Obama will see to it that the US votes for or abstains from vetoing the second one, which will make the UNESCO one moot anyway. If Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem are to be ethnically cleansed of 500,000 Jews who have lived there for decades, Jews wont have any access to their holy sites anyway.

No sovereign nation would put up with this and Israel won't either. But it will legitimize the idea of Israeli 'occupation' and help to further distance Israel from the U.S. if Mrs. Clinton is the president.

Personally, if I were Netanyahu I would inform Secretary Kerry that if the United States abrogates Oslo and the Road Map in this way, Israel will no longer be bound by those agreements either and will feel free to resolve this situation unilaterally in a way of its own choosing.

In the end, that's what going to happen anyway. Facts on the ground will always trump the bigoted nonsense coming from the UN. Any ethical or moral authority it once had left a long time ago.

Abbas - Palestinians Will Resubmit 'Statehood' Resolution to UN

 

Palestine's unelected leader Mahmoud Abbas has announced that he plans to resubmit their resolution calling for a unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state of the pre-'67 lines to the UN Security Council again, after the new members get seated. Since pro-Israel UNSC members like Australia, South Korea and Rwanda are leaving because their terms are up and being replaced by the likes of Angola, Malaysia (which doesn't recognize Israel's existence), New Zealand, Spain, and Venezuela, it's probable that the only thing that would stop it from passing this time is a U.S. veto.The United States has said it doesn't support the resolution, which would violate the Oslo Accords and th eRoad Map, two treaties both the U.S. and the PLO are signatories to.

“We will go back to the Security Council until it recognizes our rights,” Abbas said Sunday in Ramallah, in the West Bank, Reuters reported. “We are determined to join international conventions and treaties despite the pressure.

“We didn’t fail, the UN Security Council failed us. We’ll go again to the Security Council, why not? Perhaps after a week.”

It's worth looking at what Mahmoud Abbas his 'rights'...and what the countries who vote in favor of the resolution will actually be endorsing.

Abbas wants the UN to gift him and the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians all of Judea and Samaria as well as all of East Jerusalem, something that would force Israel back to indefensible borders. Abbas is also insisting on a 'right of return' for all those whom consider themselves refugees to what's left of Israel, as well as for the freedom of all the convicted terrorists in Israeli jails. And the resolution sets a deadline of 2017 for Israel to comply, which means that there really isn't any reason for Israel to return to peace talks.After all, what's left to  'negotiate'? Particularly with a fixed deadline that allows Abbas to simply wait things out?

Voting for the resolution also means the ethnic cleansing of 500,00 Jews, the barring of Jews permanently from their holiest religious sites, and for the destruction of an Israel helpless against terrorist assaults. And it means legitimizing a 'government' composed of vicious, and corrupt kleptocrats on the one hand and genocidal murderers on the other.

That is, if the Israelis comply with it.

They won't, even if it passes. No sane country would.

It remains to be seen if the Obama Administration will use its veto if it comes to that. I think there's a good chance they will, although I'm sure they'd rather not. But it may be that Abbas has worn out his welcome in Washington..and elsewhere, if what I'm reading about the lack of pledges being redeemed for extra aid to 'Palestine to rebuild Gaza. That promised $5.4 billion appears no where in sight, and if Abbas forces an American veto, it is going to give impetus to moves in the U.S. congress to defund U.S. aid to the PLO, which no totals over $400 million per year, not counting the millions the U.S. gives to fund UNRWA, the UN agency tasked with the care and feeding of the Palestinians, something no other refugees have.

The Israelis, quite properly have already frozen the $125 million per month they collect in taxes for the PLO, and there's serious talk about applying these funds to the PLO's huge electricity billowed to Israel.

The PLO, meanwhile is attempting to join the International Criminal Court and a number of other international conventions to attempt to wage lawfare against Israel.

The ICC, while extremely biased against Israel might have problems accepting 'Palestine' as a member. They aren't a state, which is required,  And the last time they tried it, the then-ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo announced that his office lacked the authority to determine whether the P.A. self-rule area constituted a “state.”

Also, the Rome Statutes, the ICC'c guiding treaty  empowers them to investigate and act in cases of alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide carried out by one state in the territory of another. That's also a difficulty since 'Palestine' has no boundaries at present, except in Mahmoud Abbas's imagination.

Even more ludicrously, Hamas, who won the last free election the people whom call themselves Palestinians were allowed to have say, with some justification that Mahmoud Abbas has no right to submit this UN resolution or join any of these international accords without holding a referendum..which Hamas would almost certainly win.

Since they are supposedly the PLO's equal partners in a unity government, it's ridiculous that the UN is even considering this nonsense seriously. Would they do so if this involved any other country than Israel?

'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.

Obama Soils Himself At The UN With Weakness, Appeasement And Israel Bashing

 

President Barack Hussein Obama addressed the UN General Assembly today. Even by Obama standards, an admittedly low bar, it was a turgid speech that lacked even elementary common sense, and threw out gratuitous insults that undercut its supposed goals. But it's worth analyzing as a clear indicator of how this president thinks and what he's planning as commander-in-chief.

The president, of course, sees the Ebola outbreak, Russian aggression and Islamist terrorism as all problems that have been caused by America not giving enough money and resources to the UN, or in ObamaSpeak, "the failure of our international system to keep pace with an interconnected world."

Of course, the president also includes Israel in those problems, but more on that shortly.

As always, President Obama substituted verbiage for real action. He took a few minutes to bash Russia over the situation with Ukraine, explicitly comparing them with Nazi Germany.

Now, here's something to consider. This president is already having problems building an 'international coalition' that means anything more than a little logistical support and a handful of Arab nations making token contributions to the air strikes against Islamic State.

Remember too, that Putin understood a long time before President Obama that the Syrian opposition were mostly Islamist jihadis, and that it was Russia's Putin that approached Obama about crafting a diplomatic solution for Syria - only to be double crossed by the president when Putin found out Obama was covertly arming and training what became ISIS and had secretly moved 1,800 troops to the Syria/Jordan border.You'd think that perhaps one of his advisers might have mentioned that Russia is an important actor in the region, that any UN action of the kind the president was talking about would require Russia's assent, and that the Ukraine was perhaps best dealt with in an actual private interaction between the U.S. and Russia. But of course, no one can tell this president anything, except maybe Valerie Jarret. So out came the nasty and counterproductive rhetoric.

It reminds me of nothing so much as a weak, obnoxious ten-year-old on the playground shouting out schoolboy insults at other kids, knowing he's safe because Teacher Is Watching.

And by the way...is anyone considering that the president is making air strikes on Syria and arming Islamist 'rebels' who want to overthrow Basher Assad, something not too much different than he's accusing Russia of doing in Ukraine? Certainly the Russians will see it that way.And react accordingly.

The president went on to mention his pursuit of 'a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue', urging Iran to "take this historic opportunity." Considering how America has appeased the Iranian regime and allowed the Iranians to play for time as Iran ramps up its enrichment and weapons development, I'm sure the Iranians would agree that they are definitely taking this historic opportunity they're being offered. Just not the one the president's talking about.

 

After some blather about climate change, the president went on to use almost one third of his speech to talk about what a peaceful religion Islam is, and how The Islamic State (AKA ISIS) have nothing to do with Islam whatsoever. Oddly enough, at one point, after saying they have nothing to do with Islam, he referred to them as “religiously motivated fanatics” , even if they are universally Muslims, and even if their leader, al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic studies from Baghdad University!

In another part of the speech, he again retreated into Obama Fantasyland, talking about how he defeated al-Qaeda (he arguably strengthened it), is supporting a sovereign government in Iraq and chest thumped about how he "supported a transition to a sovereign Afghan government" as 'triumphs'.

He then went on to assure those “religiously motivated fanatics” that the U.S. isn't ever going to put boots on the ground or invade their countries. Taking ground troops off the table and tipping off our enemies in the region in advance about our weakness and lack of a working strategy is pretty bad, although it certainly appeases his Leftist base. But here's something else that seems to not square at all with what he calls his 'successes' in Iraq and Afghanistan. What passes for 'sovereign governments' in those countries was only achieved after an American military occupation. Yet he's already telling the world (and our enemies) he's not going to use the tool that achieved whatthe president calls his 'successes' in this latest conflict!

After which he of course says, standing before the most corrupt and wasteful institution in the world, that the real solution to dealing with those “religiously motivated fanatics” who have nothing to do with Islam is for the West to gift the UN a lot more money for development in an area that just happens to be exclusively Muslims, serially corrupt and governed by the Religion of Peace!

The most surreal part of the speech is where he talks about attacking all those “religiously motivated fanatics” who have nothing to do with Islam ideologically. Or, to quote this president directly, "That means cutting off the funding that fuels this hate. It’s time to end the hypocrisy of those who accumulate wealth through the global economy, and then siphon funds to those who teach children to tear it down."

Well! I'm certainly relieved to hear that America is going to pull all of its forces out of Qatar, cancel that $11 billion arms deal that the president just approved with them and introduce sanctions on sales of Qatari oil and gas as well as banking sanctions that won't allow any financial institution dealing with Qatar to be involved in any financial transaction with American banks, just as President Bush did with al-Qaeda.

And also, that America is going to cut off the funds from overseas that finance all of the Muslim Brotherhood linked jihadi mosques and madrassahs here in America.

Oh, wait..that's just the president running his mouth again! We aren't actually going to do anything concrete that really involves "cutting off the funding that fuels this hate."

But wait, there's more:

"All religions have been attacked by extremists from within at some point, and all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the value at the heart of all religion: do unto thy neighbor as you would have done unto you."

"The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day. Look at the new Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies – Sheikh bin Bayyah described its purpose: “We must declare war on war, so the outcome will be peace upon peace.”

Hmmmm...

Now as it happens, I'm not unfamiliar with the Qu'ran,and while I don't recall much at all about 'do unto thy neighbor as you would have done unto you' unless we're talking about how Muslims are supposed to treat fellow Muslims, there's all sorts of things in there about fighting the unbelievers, being harsh with them, making them pay outrageous taxes in exchange for the right to life and generally taking their rights away altogether..particularly if they're women. In fact, the Qu'ran says specifically not to take unbelievers as friends, (Qu'ran 5:51), calling them Muslim's 'inveterate foe' (4:101), that 'those who reject Islam serve the cause of evil'(4:76). In fact, according to all the hadiths, Mohammed himself shortly before his death enjoined all Muslims to fight the unbelievers until they died, became Muslims, or paid the jirzya (the heavy monetary tribute literally, protection money) willingly and 'felt themselves subdued.'

Now while a lot of Muslims reject this, there are also quite a few who see it as authentic Islam and it's more than just a few “religiously motivated fanatics.”

So our president is either willfully and knowingly lying, hideously ignorant, has a very different idea than most people about what constitutes terrorism and fanaticism that most of the rest of us, or perhaps all three.

That he sought to rationalize what's going on in Islam by saying "All religions have been attacked by extremists from within at some point" (news to Buddhists, Jews and many Christian denominations!) and cites Sheik Abdullah bin Bayyah as his example of a 'peaceful, moderate Muslim leader' who can aid the West in combating jihad.

Really?

Sheik bin Bayyah is the principal deputy to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader who favors a second Holocaust against Jews performed by Muslims, genocide and ethnic cleansing in Israel, female circumcision and wife beating, and the establishment of the Caliphate under strict sharia law.

Sheik bin Bayyah works with Qaradawi as second in command of Qaradawi's International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) which among other things strongly supports Hamas, an officially designated terrorist organization designated as such under American law. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Turkey’s Islamist anti-semitic president Tayyip Erdogan are both members of IUMS.

The group is violently anti-Israel, and bin Bayyh himself issued a fatwa in 2004 calling the killing of U.S. troops in Iraq 'a duty for all Muslims.'

The president has perhaps forgotten(or more likely,shrugged off) that when most Islamists use the term 'peace' they mean something very different than we do. They means Dar Islam, the 'peace' that will come when Muslims rule the world and all of Dar Harb (literally 'the house of war' the part of the world ruled by non-Muslims) has been conquered and subdued.

The Sheik has never formally broken with Qaradawi or Hamas, but merely claims he left the IUMS 'about a year ago.'. And this hardcore Islamist is the example of 'moderate Islam' being pushed by the president. For that matter, even Qaradawi himself isn't exactly considered off limits when it comes to the Obama regime.

And oh yes, of course the president had something to say about Israel. According to the president, too many Israelis are "ready to abandon the hard work of peace" after having to live for years of being attacked, of genocidal terrorism and with having their very legitimacy as a nation with a right to defend themselves essentially ignored by most of the UN.

And that's Israel fault, or as President Obama said, departing from his printed remarks made available to reporters beforehand, "And that’s something worthy of reflection within Israel."

It's not something Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority ought to think about, you see...just those pesky Israelis. It's their fault. After that, the president went back to the script:

"But let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away from this effort – not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis, Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security."

Rockets have been being fired at Israelis all throughout the Obama presidency. Has he ever done anything about it? Nope. In fact, he's been funding Hamas through USAid and through the Palestinian Authority for quite some time.

Notice too how our Dear Leader equates Hamas's terrorist aggression with Israel defending itself. And of course, it's Israel that are the child killers..forget about Hamas using children for human shields or using schools, mosques, hospitals and UN facilities as rocket and mortar launching sites for their military.

Abbas and the PLO are allied with the genocidal Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is making no attempt whatsoever to disassociate themselves from Hamas - the reverse in fact. Yet President Obama has the unmitigated gall to tell Israel that they had better make even more concessions and work a lot harder at making peace with people who have sworn to kill them.

I doubt it's a coincidence that the president made this speech in front of the UN when he knew very well that Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu is en route to address the UN in a day or so. It's the same thing he did the last time Netanyahu came to America, a blatant attempt to poison the water and undercut him.

Then again, think about this. If you were actually trying to work on a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and the Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians, would you signal your bias in this fashion? Would you signal a country that is supposedly your ally that you can't be trusted and reveal the same thing to its enemies?

In this speech to the UN, President Barack Hussein Obama gives us a classic rundown on why he is such an abysmal failure; his refusal to recognize reality, his ability to continue to lie to himself as well as to others, his weakness, his duplicity, his inability to admit mistakes or ever take responsibility for anything, his blatant hypocrisy and most of all his low moral character.

Such men can destroy if they attain power, but in the end they can build nothing at all.

This speech tells us why President Obama's place in history is assured. That at least is certain.

Is Iran's Rouhani A Change For The Better?

 

 By David Gerstman

It is nearly a year since Iran's President Hassan Rouhani spoke before the United Nations General Assembly.

Later this week he is scheduled to speak again before the General Assembly, but the enthusiasm expressed last year is nowhere to be seen.

In the run up to his speech there was much excitement among the chattering classes. Take, for example, a couple of paragraphs from an editorial in The New York Times from September 22, 2013, a year ago today:

The next few weeks will be critical for capitalizing on a new sense of promise created by a recent flurry of remarkable gestures: Iran’s leadership has sent Rosh Hashana greetings to Jews worldwide via Twitter, released political prisoners, exchanged letters through the Swiss with President Obama, praised “flexibility” in negotiations and transferred responsibility for nuclear negotiations from conservatives in the military to the Foreign Ministry. Mr. Obama eased restraints on humanitarian and good-will activities, including athletic exchanges between the two countries. ...

Mr. Rouhani has a sophisticated, Western-savvy team. His foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, received degrees from American universities and spent most of his adult life in the United States. Together they have raised expectations in a world eager to see Iran play a more constructive role, and the charm offensive is in full swing. Policy experts, journalists and business people are jockeying to attend a number of invitation-only breakfasts, dinners and meetings scheduled by Mr. Rouhani and Mr. Zarif while they are in New York. There’s a lot riding on their visit this week.

But the "remarkable gestures" that The New York Times cited were remarkable hollow.

Sure,  Rouhani wished Jews of the world a happy new year last year, but he also expressed his support of Hamas to defeat "the Zionist regime," and apparently re-established ties with Hamas.

Yes  Rouhani praised "flexibility" in nuclear negotiations but only demanded flexibility from the West. Now the International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran hasn't come clean about the scope of its nuclear program. (Not that Iran's record gave any hope that it would play by the rules.)

The released political prisoners were a sham; often harassed or re-arrested when they were no longer in the public eye. Irwin Cotler recently outlined how human rights have actually gotten worse under Rouhani.

 

It would be nice if, having bet on change, the editors of The New York Times would acknowledge that they judged Iran incorrectly.

The most generous interpretation is that Rouhani was simply window dressing; a kinder, gentler face on the real leader of the regime Ayatollah Khamenei. The more likely explanation is that Rouhani is every bit as extreme as the regime (he boasted of expanding Iran's enrichment capability when everyone claimed that he compromised in 2003) but is slightly more pragmatic in his willingness to deal with the West.

 

Instead of acknowledging that no real change has taken place in Iran, most of those who made the mistake are relatively silent. They know that the evidence proves them wrong, but they would prefer to ignore the evidence than to own up to their cheer-leading of one of the most disastrous foreign policy debacles of our time.