Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > Debate Social & Political Issues
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Debate Social & Political Issues Debate Social and political discussion about Israel/Palestinians, the Middle east or world politics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-29-2016, 12:28 AM
WABA WABA is offline
Dragon
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,542
WABA will become famous soon enough
Default [B] Barack Obama’s Antisemitic UN Act[/B]

The Algemeiner

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 29TH | 29 KISLEV 5777



Barack Obama’s Antisemitic UN Act


avatar by Morton A. Klein / JNS.org


JNS.org – It was particularly painful and frustrating seeing President Barack Hussein Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power team up on an antisemitic knifing of Israel in the back at the UN — particularly because so few people listened during the months when my organization, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), issued press releases, held press conferences, spoke on TV and radio and published full-page ads in the New York Times and other newspapers warning that Obama would betray Israel at the UN after the 2016 election.

(See ZOA’s Oct. 29 New York Times ad, entitled “After Elections, Will Obama Betray Israel at the U.N.?”)

ZOA pleaded with other Jewish organizations and leaders, and with US senators, to join our campaign to stop Obama from doing grave damage to Israel at the UN. But those groups and leaders responded, “Don’t be silly; Obama will never do this.”

I have been unable to sleep, thinking about how a relentless united Jewish front may have stopped Obama, may have smoked him out to expose his position early on. We might not be stuck today trying to unravel a vicious resolution that promotes ethnically cleansing the Jewish people from our millennia-old homeland, indefensible 1949 armistice lines that had no legal basis and antisemitic legal actions and boycotts.

If only the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and similar groups had not refused to support the legal, political, historic and religious right of Jews to live in the Jewish homeland in Judea and Samaria, as well as east Jerusalem. Some groups openly opposed this right, sending a message to Obama and the world that Jews were divided on this critical issue.

ZOA’s ads cited flashing warning signs that Obama was plotting to pass an anti-Israel, antisemitic resolution. Obama’s US State Department began “strongly condemning” Israel for building a few apartments and threatened to “reconsider” US policy at the UN.

Obama’s “echo chamber” at the New York Times and like-minded media simultaneously published virtually identical condemnations and demands for UN actions. The White House crossed out the word “Israel” from a reference to late statesman Shimon Peres’s burial location in Jerusalem. In his Peres eulogy, Obama falsely accused Israel of enslaving Palestinians.

A WikiLeaks document revealed the Obama administration’s plan for “consequences” against Israel’s refusal to freeze construction.

ZOA also predicted eight years ago that Obama would be the “worst president for Israel ever.”

During his first presidential campaign, Obama told the New York Times on May 16, 2008, that “Hamas and Hezbollah…have legitimate claims.”

Obama worshiped for 22 years at the antisemitic church where Reverend Jeremiah Wright — whom Obama called a great man and mentor — shouted “God damn America” and “God damn Israel.” Obama befriended the virulently anti-Israel and antisemitic Louis Farrakhan, Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi and Electronic Intifada founder Ali Abunimah, as well as the radical Bill Ayers.

Obama’s first act as President-elect was threatening Israel to stop defending itself from Hamas rockets in Gaza. It was not coincidental that Israel prematurely ended its efforts to wipe out Hamas’s rocket arsenals the day before Obama was sworn into office in January 2009.

During his 2009 Cairo speech, Obama falsely likened Israel’s treatment of Palestinian Arabs to the Nazis’ treatment of Jews.

During Hamas’s latest war against Israel in 2014, Obama sent Hamas-ruled Gaza $47 million, urged Israel to accept an early cease-fire with pro-Hamas terms, refused to send critical arms to Israel for days and unnecessarily briefly stopped American commercial flights to Israel.

He also reduced funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, only to have Congress reinstate it
.

When the Palestinian Authority (PA) formed a unity government with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction and murdering every Jew, Obama proclaimed he would continue funding the PA.

Obama pushed through the catastrophic Iran nuclear deal, giving a regime bent on Israel’s and America’s annihilation $150 billion in sanctions relief and a path to a nuclear bomb. Additionally, he released hundreds of Islamist terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, one-third of whom have returned to terrorism actions.


But Obama was not satisfied with giving Iran the means to destroy Israel. Obama’s ingrained antisemitism is so deep that he also apparently needed to drive another knife into Israel’s back last week.

After the fact, many Jewish groups and leaders joined with ZOA, bipartisan Congress members and others to condemn the horrendous UN Security Council resolution.

But we must do more now.

It’s time to unite to support real action — such as the proposal by US Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to eliminate funding to the UN and PA until Resolution 2334 is reversed.

It’s time for AIPAC and other Jewish groups to proclaim that Jerusalem is not negotiable, and that Jews have the right to live in our homeland in eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria.

It’s time to join ZOA in explaining that Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in the Torah — but never in the Koran — and is not holy to Muslims.


It’s time for AIPAC and others to stop promoting a Palestinian state (the so-called “two-state solution”), and to join us in explaining that experience, polling and Palestinian-Arab leaders’ own statements demonstrate that this “solution” would be a Hamas-Iran-PLO terrorist state that seeks to obliterate Israel.

It’s time for Hadassah and the Conservative movement, and others, to end their campaigns against incoming White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and to instead condemn antisemites such as Keith Ellison.

It’s time for Jewish groups to appreciate our friends who tried to stop the horrendous Security Council resolution, including President-elect Donald Trump, together with his great nominee for US ambassador to Israel David Friedman and Bannon.

And it’s time for us to all work together with the pro-Israel incoming Trump administration to repair the damage that Obama, Kerry and Power have wrought.


Morton A. Klein is president of the Zionist Organization of America.


https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/12/2...emitic-un-act/

Last edited by WABA; 12-29-2016 at 12:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-29-2016, 01:31 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama and Israel: Why Are People Surprised?

Obama and Israel: Why Are People Surprised?
Democrats programmed to kiss the ring of the emperor for the past eight years are now up in arms over Obama's duplicity toward Israel.
By Jerrold L. Sobel


http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...surprised.html


For reasons beyond my comprehension, friends of the Jewish state both here and in Israel are shocked and dismayed over last Friday’s U.S. veto abstention at the UN. But hold the presses. If Israel’s claims, which they profess to be ironclad, are true, the passage of UNSC resolution 2334 is just the tip of the iceberg in the ever-widening breach of American/Israeli relations.

The real story may be that the Obama administration orchestrated the resolution and colluded with New Zealand and such democratic stalwarts as Malaysia, Senegal, and Venezuela to present it to the Security Council. If this proves correct, it will confirm what many on the right have been saying for years: Obama is malevolent toward Israel and intends to apply this animus both here and in the UN. With only three weeks to go he’ll be working at breakneck speed to make as big a mess as possible for incoming President Trump.

Love him or hate him, Obama has never hidden his disdain for Israel in general, or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular. So what’s the surprise? The surprise is: Democrats so programmed to kiss the ring of the emperor for the past eight years are now up in arms.

Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (http://www.businessinsider.com/un-is...ocrats-2016-12) of New York said it was "extremely frustrating, disappointing and confounding" that the Obama administration failed to veto the UN's vote. He went on to say that the U.N. is a "fervently" anti-Israel body, since the days of "Zionism is racism.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, another Democrat from Connecticut, called the U.S.'s abstention from the vote “unconscionable." Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat from Oregon, stated he was "deeply disappointed" that the Obama administration allowed such a "one-sided" resolution to pass and that "actions like this will only take us further from the peace we all want to see.” In the same vein, Sen. Mark Warner, Democrat from Virginia, wrote: "I am dismayed that the administration departed from decades of U.S. policy by not vetoing the UN resolution regarding Israeli settlements.”

In the House, the ranking Democratic member on the Foreign Affairs Committee Eliot Engle said he was "very disappointed" by the U.S.'s "acquiescence to a one-sided, biased resolution at the United Nations Security Council.” He went on: "I have always believed that Israel can’t get a fair shake at the U.N.”

Why these seasoned long-time Democratic members of Congress and long-term supporters of president Obama are so astonished at this betrayal beats me. Although admittedly dismayed, I’m far from astounded. To understand why, let’s take a trip down memory lane.

From his first days in office, President Obama has been intent on creating distance between the United States and Israel because he viewed the closeness of the relationship as bad for American foreign policy. Meeting with Jewish leaders in 2009 he’s on record saying: “Look at the past eight years. During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politi...mney-daylight/), Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.”

Interesting quote: “what did we get from that?” A close friend, a loyal ally, Israel is not a vassal state. As a supposed impartial arbitrator, he should not expect to get anything from that. Some might call it chutzpah to expect the democratically elected government of Israel to forego their own security so the U.S. could maintain credibility with the Arab states. Would we do that? Would any sovereign nation do that facing a contumacious enemy showing no sign or willingness to negotiate a compromise peace deal?

In 2012, Israel had a viable option for a preemptive military strike against Iran’s budding nuclear capability. Unfortunately, the Obama's administration (http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm.../obama-israel/), seeking to quash this option, repeatedly leaked vital covert Israeli information, including which countries Israel had effected a deal with to fly over their territory for an attack on Iran. Where was the outrage from the aforementioned then?

For that matter, why didn’t Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti Defamation League and other Jewish leaders who condemned the veto vote offer any pushback when Obama cajoled Netanyahu to return to the indefensible and suicidal pre-1967 armistice lines?

Confronted with a recalcitrant foe whose malevolence knows no bounds, this president, like none other, has placed the onus for stalemated “peace talks”, not where it belongs on Abbas and his intractable PA, but has instead censured, reprimanded, and excoriated Israel throughout his tenure in office. Why? For the blame he affixes to Netanyahu for failure to accede to the debunked policy of land for peace. A policy bereft of peace but not of war.

One enigma will remain for many years to come. Why with all that’s going on in the world, much to his making, Obama has this obsession with Israel and their right to build housing in their ancestral homeland? it’s inexplicable.

Likewise inexplicable is seeing outrage from many among the 70% of the American Jewish electorate and mainstream Jewish organizations other than the ZOA which sat by for eight years and were silent during:
  • Hillary Clinton's (http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm.../obama-israel/) 43-minute pillorying of the prime minister for announcing already approved construction in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem.
  • David Axelrod asserting that President Obama considered the housing approval “an affront, an insult, and very, very destructive.”
  • Defense Secretary Robert Gates calling Israel “an ungrateful ally.”
  • Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s chastising Israel to “get back to the damn negotiating table.”
  • Obama shoving PM Netanyahu out the White House back door, no dinner, no joint statement.
  • Pushing Israel to apologize for intercepting the terrorist Gaza flotilla.
  • Obama’s speech sandbagging Netanyahu just before he arrived in Washington, calling on Israel to retreat to the 1949 Armistice line as a starting point for negotiations?

In answer to the question, there was no outrage. Except for false platitudes, by word and deed Obama has never hidden his bitterness toward Israel. Except to the willfully blind, the record clearly indicates rather than acting as an impartial arbiter, his actions have encouraged Palestinian intransigence and in effect extirpated any chance for a peace deal. Taken in this context, last week’s veto abstention and today’s accusation of complicity should be no surprise to anyone.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...surprised.html
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 12-29-2016 at 01:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-29-2016, 01:42 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama and Kerry: Poster Boys For Moral Relativism

Obama and Kerry: Poster Boys For Moral Relativism
The president and his secretary of state seem not to understand that there is no moral equivalency between Israel and those who want to see the Jewish State extinguished.
By Patricia McCarthy


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...elativism.html


So graceless and sophomoric are Obama and John Kerry, so viciously biased against Israel and Netanyahu, that they planned and plotted how to best humiliate the Jewish State in their last few weeks in office.

First they coordinated the passage of a U.N. resolution condemning "settlements" that are, in fact, towns and cities of long standing. (The settlements are not really the issue; Israel's very existence is.) By abstaining from voting, the U.S. allowed the resolution to pass. East Jerusalem and Israel's Western Wall have now been deemed "occupied territory"! The Wall is a Jewish holy site built in 19 B.C.

This was all a pathetic exercise in ideological pique by Obama and Kerry, neither of whom will be remembered well by history. This president's legacy, along with his two failed secretaries of state, will be one of tragedy upon catastrophe, genocide, death, and destruction. And now, as they are walking out the door, they want to take down the one democracy in the Middle East.

Yesterday, Kerry spoke for over an hour, drawing a moral equivalency between the Israelis and the Palestinians, as though the people who pay their home-grown terrorists a monthly salary for killing an Israeli, name streets and buildings after these "heroes" of their cause, build tunnels to enable their terrorist attacks on the Jewish State, launch rockets into Israeli schoolyards, and refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist are legitimate actors. Kerry condemned Israel as though defending herself from Arab terror is a crime.

This is anti-Semitism straight up, to borrow a phrase. Israel's existence and success enrage Obama just as they do so many Arabs in the Middle East, who have been carefully taught since birth that Israel is the epitome of evil, an interloper in the region even though the Jews have had a continuous presence on the land for thousands of years.

When James Foley was beheaded on video in 2014, Obama went golfing, just as he did last week after the terrorist attack on the Christmas market in Berlin and all the other acts of horror perpetrated by Islamic radicals in between. He is not really bothered by those events. He never took ISIS seriously, nor has he shown any concern for that group's Christian genocide. Syria using chemical weapons on its own people did not anger him as much as Israel angers him. Obama could not be moved to take action against Assad as that leader began killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. He loved and eulogized Castro, a thug dictator, and loathes Netanyahu.

Abbas is not an honest broker, is as corrupt as Arafat, and refuses to come to the table or speak before the Knesset. But Kerry spoke as though Abbas and Netanyahu are of equal status. So it is reasonable to conclude that Obama is on the side of the Arab terrorists. Like those radicalized Muslims, he cannot abide Israel's existence any more than the so-called Palestinian people can. It would appear that Obama deeply internalized the teachings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

At the end of the film Scent of a Woman, Al Pacino's character, Lieutenant Slade, erupts after the headmaster of the private school Charlie attends threatens to expel the young man for refusing to corroborate the names of the boys involved in an incident of vandalism. Charlie, a young man of character, will not snitch on his classmates and so will be punished while another boy, George, the son of a rich man and a squishy coward, will be forgiven. Slade rightly screams, "You're going to reward George and destroy Charlie!" That is exactly what Obama and Kerry are trying to do. They have rewarded the terrorist Palestinians who teach their children in nursery school to hate and kill Jews, who inculcate in them the drive to destroy Israel, a democracy with over a million Arab citizens, that has been attacked for all of its nearly seventy-years of statehood.

That Israel has prevailed and thrives is too bitter a pill for the hate-filled Arabs who surround the Jewish State. Obama and Kerry clearly share their anger and thus have behaved not like the statesmen they are supposed to be, but like members of the same hordes that regularly demonize and attack Israel.

Kerry ridiculously intoned that "Israel can either be Jewish or democratic; it cannot be both." This was an absurd statement. There is something terribly wrong with this man. Israel is Jewish and democratic and is likely to remain so, unlike the Arab nations that surround her. Obama, Kerry, and the U.N., long an obsessive bastion of anti-Semitism, have thoroughly discredited themselves. There is no moral equivalency between Israel and those who want to see the Jewish State extinguished. January 20 cannot come soon enough.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...elativism.html
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-29-2016, 01:53 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Behind the scenes of the American betrayal of Israel

Behind The Scenes Of The American Betrayal Of Israel
Conspiring with terrorists to undermine Israel's security.
By Rick Moran


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...of_israel.html

In 1979, then-U.N. ambassador Andrew Young was fired by President Carter for meeting on the sideliness of the U.N. with a representative of the PLO. The U.S. had promised Israel that it would not meet with the PLO until the terrorists acknowledged Israel's right to exist.

Flash forward to 2016, where the Israelis say they have "ironclad proof" that U.S. officials conspired with the Palestinians to pass the most anti-Israel resolution in the U.N.'s history.

Associated Press:

Doubling down on its public break with the Obama administration, a furious Israeli government on Tuesday said it had received "ironclad" information from Arab sources that Washington actively helped craft last week's U.N. resolution declaring Israeli settlements in occupied territories illegal.

The allegations further poisoned a toxic atmosphere between Israel and the outgoing administration in the wake of Friday's vote, raising questions about whether the White House might take further action against settlements in President Barack Obama's final weeks in office.

With the U.S. expected to participate in an international peace conference in France next month and Secretary of State John Kerry planning a final policy speech, the Palestinians hope to capitalize on the momentum. Israel's nationalist government is banking on the incoming Trump administration to undo the damage with redoubled support.

Although the U.S. has long opposed the settlements, it has generally used its Security Council veto to protect its ally from censure. On Friday, it abstained from a resolution calling settlements a "flagrant violation" of international law, allowing it to pass by a 14-0 margin.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has had a cool relationship with Obama, called the resolution "shameful" and accused the U.S. of playing an active role in its passage.

On Tuesday, his spokesman went even further.

"We have ironclad information that emanates from sources in the Arab world and that shows the Obama administration helped craft this resolution and pushed hard for its eventual passage," David Keyes said. "We're not just going to be a punching bag and go quietly into the night."

He did not identify the Arab sources or say how Israel obtained the information. Israel has close security ties with Egypt, the original sponsor of last week's resolution who, as the lone Arab member of the Security Council, was presenting it at the Palestinians' request. Under heavy Israeli pressure, Egypt delayed the resolution indefinitely — but other members presented it for a vote a day later. Egypt ended up voting in favor of the measure.

The Obama administration has vehemently denied Israel's allegations.

"We did not draft, advance, promote, or even tell any other country how we would vote on this resolution in advance of the Egyptians putting it in blue last week," said White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.

Is Rhodes lying? The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/transcr...un-resolution/) has published a transcript of meetings between the U.S. and Palestinians that appeared in an Egyptian newspaper ("Arab sources?") that show just how far the U.S. conspired with terrorists against their allies:

In a meeting in early December with top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Palestinians that the US was prepared to cooperate with the Palestinians at the Security council, Israel’s Channel 1 TV said, quoting the Egyptian Al-Youm Al-Sabea newspaper.

Also present at the meeting according to the report were US National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and Majed Faraj, director of the Palestinian Authority’s General Intelligence Service.

White House national security council spokesman Ned Price on Wednesday told the Times of Israel that no such meeting took place. “The ‘transcript’ is a total fabrication,” he said.

While the State Department confirmed meetings that Erekat and a Palestinian delegation had with Kerry and separately with Rice, no tripartite between all of them took place, according to Price.

Kerry is quoted as saying that he could present his ideas for a final status solution if the Palestinians pledge they will support the proposed framework. The US officials advised the Palestinians to travel to Riyadh to present the plan to Saudi leaders.

Israel fears that Kerry, who is slated to give a speech Wednesday on the subject, will then lay out his comprehensive vision for two-state solution at a Paris peace conference planned for January. Israel has refused to attend. Israel further fears that this Kerry framework could be enshrined in another UN Security Council resolution.

From what we know of the administration's attitude toward Israel, the transcript rings true, although any information originating from a source in the Middle East must be accepted with some skepticism. Still, to think it was possible that two of the top foreign policy representatives of the United States would actively conspire with terrorist-supporting Palestinians against one of our closest allies is remarkable in a historical context.

Great Britain is also singled out for working to pass the anti-Israel resolution, reportedly urging New Zealand to introduce the measure at the Security Council:

According to Haaretz, in an article titled “Britain Pulled the Strings and Netanyahu Warned New Zealand It Was Declaring War: New Details on Israel’s Battle Against the UN Vote” (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.761706) According to Haaretz: “The British secretly worked the Palestinians and urged New Zealand to move ahead with the resolution, and a call from Netanyahu to Putin triggered a real drama at the UN HQ just one hour before the vote.”

Last Friday, a few hours before the UN Security Council vote on the settlements, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu phoned New Zealand’s foreign minister, Murray McCully. New Zealand, together with Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela, was leading the move to resubmit for a vote the resolution from which Egypt had backed down the day before.

A few hours earlier, a senior official in the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem called New Zealand’s ambassador to Israel, Jonathan Curr, and warned that if New Zealand’s move came to a vote, Israel might close its embassy in Wellington in protest. Ambassador Curr noted this and reported it to his government, but when dawn came in New York Israel understood that things were still moving ahead.

Netanyahu’s phone call to McCully was almost his last attempt to prevent the vote, or at least to postpone it and buy a little time. Western diplomats say the conversation was harsh and very tense and Netanyahu let loose with sharp threats, perhaps unprecedented in relations between Israel and another Western country.

“This is a scandalous decision. I’m asking that you not support it and not promote it,” Netanyahu told McCully, according to the Western diplomats, who asked to remain unnamed due to the sensitivity of the matter. “If you continue to promote this resolution from our point of view it will be a declaration of war. It will rupture the relations and there will be consequences. We’ll recall our ambassador to Jerusalem.” McCully refused to back down from the vote. “This resolution conforms to our policy and we will move it forward,” he told Netanyahu.

The idea that New Zealand would introduce a resolution chastising Israel for "occupying" land not its own is absurd, when you consider that country's colonialist history (http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/2210...paign=buffer):

New Zealanders are no strangers to settlements—or to the cavalier denial of the rights of an indigenous people in their historic homeland. Coincidentally or not, this December marks the 153rd anniversary of The New Zealand Settlements Act (http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/document...ts-act-of-1863), which shows that the denial of indigenous rights, and the deliberate destruction of a two-state solution in favor of an illegal land grab, are the bedrock on which the modern state of New Zealand was founded. Given that history, and the current realities of New Zealand’s treatment of its indigenous Maori population, the country’s steering of a UN Security Council resolution pronouncing the Jewish connection to our historic homeland to be illegal passes well into the territory of historical denialism.

The story of New Zealand’s continuing illegal occupation of Maori land is best told by numbers: in 1831, there were fewer than 1,000 Europeans living in New Zealand, a population dwarfed by that of the local Maori tribes. By 1881, that number had mushroomed to 500,000, largely the result of British policy that shipped off settlers to the new continent and encouraged them to stay. It goes without saying that these Europeans had neither historical attachment nor any legal claim to the land. While the Maoris were happy at first to trade with the newcomers, they eventually realized that the Pākehā, their name for the white settlers, would not be satisfied until they seized all of the land and eliminated the Maori way of life. Wars broke out, and treaties were signed, which finally divided sovereignty in the land between the European colonialists and the aboriginal inhabitants.

But dividing the land in half between the Maori and the European colonialists wasn’t enough to satisfy the ancestors of today’s New Zealanders. In 1863, the colonial government ordered all Maori to lay down their arms. Those who did not, according to the newly passed land confiscation clauses contained in the New Zealand Settlements Act, would “forfeit the right to possession of their lands.” Four million acres of Maori lands were subsequently seized by the government in Wellington without the slightest pretense of due process and handed out as prizes to European colonialists, and Maori sovereignty in their ancestral homeland was effectively eliminated.

Perhaps it is fitting that one of the Obama administration's last acts would be to attempt to undermine Israel's security. Ironically, for a president who prides himself and his legacy for all the "firsts" he has been able to accomplish, it's probably safe to say that his administration's cynical absention at the U.N. will be a "last."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...of_israel.html
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 12-29-2016 at 02:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-29-2016, 02:07 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation John kerry: Obstacle to peace

JOHN KERRY: OBSTACLE TO PEACE
Kerry believes that peace is what happens when the bad guys win.
By Daniel Greenfield




December 29, 2016

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2652...iel-greenfield

Before Obama decided to “abstain” from standing with Israel in a UN vote condemning the Jewish State, he had abstained from voting (http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2646...iel-greenfield) in defense of America in a UN resolution condemning the United States.

Obama, like Power and Kerry, have treated Israel just like they treated the United States.

John Forbes Kerry began his miserable career as a traitor seeking “peace” by pandering to the Communist leader negotiating on behalf of the Viet Cong. He concludes his miserable career in the Senate and as Secretary of State by going to war in the name of “peace” against the only democracy in the Middle East on behalf of a totalitarian Islamic ideology and its terrorist bands of killers.

Half a century has passed. The Berlin Wall fell. So did the Soviet Union. But John Kerry remains the same.

A few months after he slimed his way into the Senate, Kerry flew to Nicaragua to meet with the ruling Communist thugs to try and sabotage aid to the resistance against their regime in the name of “peace”. The Sandinistas treated Kerry like a pathetic patsy, humiliating him by allying openly with the USSR right after their man in Washington D.C. had successfully pleaded their case to his colleagues.

Comandante was only the first of many dictators and terrorists to humiliate John Kerry. But Kerry has never resented any of his Communist or Islamist tormentors. You can set Kerry’s hair on fire and dunk his head in the toilet to put it out… and he will still come crawling back to take your side of things.

But there is one thing that Nantucket’s greatest windsurfer will not forgive or forget. Freedom.

For the worse part of five decades, Kerry has waged a vicious war against countries that have freedom on behalf of those that don’t. Nothing gets his goat like a civilized country, his own or any other, staving off a murderous band of thugs and terrorists. And no country has endured so well in that fight as Israel.

Kerry’s career as Secretary of State has been a miserable failure highlighted by stretches of spectacularly incomprehensible stupidities, from his Syria WMD non-offer to boycotting the solidarity march after the Charlie Hebdo massacre and then trying to compensate by flying in James Taylor to sing, “You’ve got a friend.” Less publicized though was his spectacular failure to negotiate “peace” between Israel and the Islamic terrorists of the Palestinian Authority who are still trying to destroy it.

The Ketchup Gigolo threw everything he had into making “peace”. Just like his effort to make peace with the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas, not to mention sundry other tyrants and terrorists, he went in assuming that the bad guys were the good guys and the good guys were the bad guys.

In the twisted mind under those Frankenstein hair plugs, peace is what happens when the bad guys win.

John Kerry didn’t try to implement the two-state solution that he keeps raving about by encouraging Israel and the Islamic terrorists to negotiate with each other. That would have been absurd. Instead he pretended to act as an intermediary between the two sides while actually representing only the PLO.

As one Israeli official said(http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/26...iel-greenfield), “We discovered that throughout the entire period, the Americans didn’t actually talk to the Palestinians, only to us.” Why bother talking to the side that you’re already on?

But, just as it had in Nicaragua, that proved to be a serious mistake. While Kerry focused on pressuring Israel to make concessions, he, like Bill Clinton, hadn’t figured out how to get the Islamic terrorists to accept them.

Kerry brought his wonderful peace proposal to Mahmoud Abbas, a fine graduate of the USSR’s Peoples' Friendship University, along with Timochenko, the head of the Marxist FARC narcoterrorists. Kerry would, very predictably, meet with Timochenko earlier this year, despite his own State Department having a $5 million reward on his head (http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/26...iel-greenfield), in yet another failed bid to force an ally to make peace with terrorists.

Excitedly, the traitor revisited the scene of his past treason, meeting with Abbas in Paris, to give him the good news. Kerry expected the terrorist leader to be overjoyed as the gift that he had brought over. Instead the terrorist turned up his nose. Kerry desperately passed the gift, of land, blood and security, extracted from Israelis, over to Obama to give to Abbas. Obama and Abbas met for two hours in the Oval Office. Abbas told Obama he might think it over and call. Like the bad date he was, he never did.

Kerry desperately wanted to be friends with the terrorists. But the terrorists didn’t want to play. “I have exhausted my time with John Kerry,” Abbas cried. "This is it."

Instead of negotiating any kind of peace, Kerry relayed blackmail threats from the terrorists. If Israel didn’t release large numbers of convicted terrorists with innocent blood on their hands, Abbas would go to the UN. Israel released most of the prisoners. Abbas went to the UN anyway. Kerry went to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and blamed Israel for the (http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/22...iel-greenfield) lack of peace.

Since then John Kerry has nursed a special hatred for the Jewish State.

When Muslim terrorists murdered Jews, John Kerry blamed Israel (http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/26...iel-greenfield). When ISIS kills other Muslims, John Kerry also blamed (http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2436...t-joseph-klein) Israel. And when John Kerry’s creme brulee donut is stale, he also blames the Jews.

And you can understand why.

John Forbes Kerry isn’t just a traitor. He’s a failed traitor. His treason has never amounted to anything except publicity stunts. The terrorists and tyrants used him, abused him and threw him away. For five decades, Kerry has been trying to defect, but no one, not the Viet Cong, the Sandinistas, Assad, FARC, Iran or the PLO would take him and keep him.

Israel was his last big bid to achieve something. And it failed. And like Carter, he blames the Jews.

Kerry and the rest of Obama Inc. have tried to cloak their campaign against Israel by claiming that they are only attacking the Jewish State because they are just so very devoted to peace.

The Hero of the Purple Band-Aid has denounced Jews living in Israel as the “obstacle to peace”. But the peace that Kerry and his boss are devoted is not the peace of coexistence, but of the triumph of evil. Instead of trying to mediate, Kerry, as always, took the side of the terrorists. He failed because it is the terrorists who refuse to make peace. It does not take a Solomon to understand this simple truth.

But it takes a radical leftist to persistently refuse to see it.

The greatest obstacle to peace is not Israel. It’s John Kerry. It’s all the other leftists like him who believe that peace comes when the terrorists win, not when they are defeated. There could have been peace long ago if Israel had been allowed to win. Instead the promised two-state solution peace has never materialized. And instead of admitting that they were wrong, the peacemakers blame Israel.

It’s either that or admit that the false promises of peace were only an excuse for destroying Israel.

The obstacle to peace does not come from Israel. It comes from its enemies. It comes from the PLO and Hamas, from Obama and from Kerry. Kerry and his ilk believe that peace is what happens when the bad guys win. But that’s their big lie. Peace is what happens when the terrorists and their allies lose.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2652...iel-greenfield
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 12-29-2016 at 02:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-29-2016, 02:27 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation John kerry’s farewell stab at israel

JOHN KERRY’S FAREWELL STAB AT ISRAEL
A fitting conclusion to a disastrous tenure as secretary of state.
By Joseph Klein


http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2652...l-joseph-klein


On December 28th, outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a rambling truth-challenged defense (http://time.com/4619064/john-kerrys-...el-transcript/) of the Obama administration’s scandalous decision allowing the United Nations Security Council to pass its most egregious anti-Israel resolution yet. Security Council Resolution 2334, which was adopted last Friday, denounced Israel’s settlements activities as illegal and destructive to the prospects of a two-state solution. Kerry concluded his 73 minute speech by outlining six principles to guide direct negotiations of a final status agreement on all outstanding issues, giving some indication that the Obama administration does not intend to use the Security Council to impose complete parameters for a final agreement or to unilaterally recognize a state of Palestine before a final agreement between the parties is reached. However, given President Obama’s animus toward Israel, and particularly Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama may still have something up his sleeve to further hurt Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu said in reaction to Kerry’s speech that it was "as unbalanced as the anti-Israel resolution passed [at the United Nations] last week." Indeed, the Obama administration destroyed all prospects for good faith negotiations directly between the Israelis and Palestinians by facilitating the Palestinians’ lawfare strategy executed through the United Nations. The anti-Israel Security Council resolution Kerry called “balanced” prejudges all the major issues against Israel under the patina of international law.

Kerry began his speech by declaring, in response to Israeli criticisms of the Obama administration’s abstention on Security Council Resolution 2334, “Friends need to tell each other the hard truths.” Kerry would not know the truth if it hit him in the face. Kerry omitted and misrepresented key facts about the resolution itself and the root cause of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He recited Palestinian talking points in lecturing Israel for expanding settlements where he said they do not belong, including in so-called “East Jerusalem.” He went so far as to accuse Israeli leaders, whom he called “the most right-wing in Israeli history,” of deliberately setting about to systematically take over the West Bank, with policies leading toward one state under Israeli rule.

Kerry claimed that the final text of Security Council Resolution 2334 was “balanced” and that it was consistent with long-standing U.S. policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The resolution was virtually all about condemning Israeli settlements and declaring them to be illegal under international law.

Kerry said in his speech, “We have called for the Palestinians to do everything in their power to stop violence and incitement, including publicly and consistently condemning acts of terrorism and stopping the glorification of violence.” However, all of Kerry’s references in his speech to such wrongdoing, which he claimed he had raised with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to no avail, failed to make it into the resolution itself. A truly balanced resolution would have cited Hamas and the Palestinian Authority by name for incitement to genocide against Jews and committing or condoning random attacks on civilians, in violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and international humanitarian law.

The anti-Israel settlements resolution did not limit its condemnation of Israeli settlements to the far-flung outposts in the middle of the West Bank that Kerry focused attention on in his speech. To the contrary, the resolution, which Kerry tried to defend, declared that the “establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law." (Emphasis added.)

In consenting to wording declaring that all Israeli settlements since 1967 have “no legal validity” from their inception, the Obama administration sharply departed from the position of past administrations, as well as its own position when it vetoed a similar resolution in 2011.

Kerry, just like UN Ambassador Samantha Power in her remarks to the Security Council following the vote on Resolution 2334, invoked Ronald Reagan’s name to justify the Obama administration’s betrayal of Israel. True, Ronald Reagan did criticize Israel’s expansion of its settlements on policy grounds. However, neither he nor any other U.S. president did what President Obama decided to do – effectively use the United Nations Security Council as an instrument to outlaw retroactively all Israeli settlements built since 1967, including apartment dwellings in the Old City of Jerusalem. Indeed, to the contrary, President Reagan had said in 1981 that Israel’s settlements were “not illegal.”

Kerry also attempted to justify the Obama administration’s abstention on Resolution 2334 by citing the Reagan administration decision to abstain on UN Security Council Resolution 605 (http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_...S/RES/605(1987)),passed on December 22, 1987 by a 14-0 vote, as a precedent. Resolution 605 had criticized Israel for its actions in what was referred to as "occupied" territories, including in Jerusalem. There are some superficial similarities. Both resolutions did refer to the Geneva Convention as being applicable to the Palestinian and other Arab territories said to be occupied by Israel since 1967, including in Jerusalem. Like Resolution 2334, Resolution 605 deemed Israel as the “occupier” of the artificially divided portion of Jerusalem that Jordan had illegally invaded and attempted to ethnically cleanse until Israel re-unified all of Jerusalem after winning a defensive war against Jordan in 1967. However, there is a big difference between the two resolutions that Kerry chose to gloss over. The resolution on which the Reagan administration abstained did not question the legality of the settlements, in Jerusalem or anywhere else. It said simply that Israel was obliged under the Geneva Convention as the “occupying power” to limit its use of force against “defenceless Palestinian civilians.” The resolution on which the Obama administration abstained, on the other hand, effectively declared any Israeli residences or building activities in the Old City of Jerusalem, which is in the eastern portion of Jerusalem and includes the Western Wall, as illegal per se under international law.

Kerry doubled down on prejudging that Jerusalem needs to be artificially re-divided and the eastern portion handed over to the Palestinians as the capital of their new state. This would effectively ratify Jordan’s original illegal aggressive occupation and de-Judaizing of the Old City, which would certainly resume if the Palestinians were to assume control.

Kerry made a couple of pronouncements in his speech recognizing Israeli concerns about terrorism and its concerns about preserving its legitimacy as a Jewish state. However, the Security Council resolution he defended worsens Israel’s situation in both of these areas.

Kerry said “we all understand that Israel faces very serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. Israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure that there is not a new terrorist haven right next door to them, often referencing what’s happened with Gaza.” Yet what the resolution has done in declaring all Israeli settlements established since 1967 to be illegal is to provide Palestinians with justification for couching their acts of terrorism in the garb of “legitimate” resistance against "illegal" occupation and settlements.

Kerry also said “Israelis are fully justified in decrying attempts to…question the right of a Jewish state to exist.” He cited the intent of General Assembly Resolution 181, the 1947 partition resolution accepted by the Jewish residents but rejected by the Palestinians and their Arab supporters, “to create two states for two peoples, one Jewish, one Arab; to realize the national aspirations of both Jews and Palestinians.” He referenced the PLO’s self-proclaimed “Declaration of Independence,” which stated that Resolution 181 “provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty.” Yet Abbas has repeatedly rejected the very idea of a Jewishstate existing in peace alongside a Palestinian state, for which Resolution 181 also provided the “conditions of international legitimacy.” If Resolution 2334 was intended to preserve the goal of “two states for two peoples, one Jewish, one Arab,” as Kerry claimed, why did he not insist that the words “Jewish state of Israel” appear at least once in the resolution? At least the resolution that Abbas is now demanding be followed as the basis for any future negotiations would give one point to Israel.

John Kerry’s speech defending the Obama administration's decision to allow the UN Security Council to condemn Israeli settlements and declare them to be illegal has been described as his farewell speech. The best advice to give to Kerry after his disastrous tenure as Secretary of State is “don't let the door hit you on the way out."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2652...l-joseph-klein
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 12-29-2016 at 02:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-29-2016, 02:46 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation UN, Obama Further Radicalize Palestinians


UN, Obama Further Radicalize Palestinians
By Khaled Abu Toameh

December 29, 2016
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9...a-palestinians



Last week's UN Security Council resolution sent the following message to the Palestinians: Forget about negotiating. Just pressure the international community to force Israel to surrender up all that you demand.

Abbas and his cronies are more belligerent and defiant than ever. They have chosen the path of confrontation, and not direct negotiations -- to force Israel to its knees.

One of Abbas's close associates hinted that the resolution should be regarded as a green light not only to boycott Israel, but also to use violence against it, to "bolster the popular resistance" against Israel -- code for throwing stones and firebombs, and carrying out stabbing and car-ramming attacks against Israelis.

The resolution has also encouraged the Palestinians to pursue their narrative that Jews have no historical, religious or emotional attachment to Jerusalem or any other part of Israel.

The Gaza-based Hamas and Islamic Jihad see the resolution as another step toward their goal of replacing Israel with an Islamic empire. When Hamas talks about "resistance," it means suicide bombings and rockets against Israel -- it does not believe in "light" terrorism such as stones and stabbings.

The UN's highly touted "victory," is a purely Pyrrhic one, in fact a true defeat to the peace process and to the few Arabs and Muslims who still believe in the possibility of coexistence with Israel.

Buoyed by the latest United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements as illegal, Palestinian leaders are now threatening to step up their diplomatic warfare against Israel -- a move that is sure to sabotage any future effort to revive the moribund peace process. Other Palestinians, meanwhile, view the resolution as license to escalate "resistance" attacks on Israel. By "resistance," of course, they mean terror attacks against Israel.

The UNSC resolution sent the following message to the Palestinians: Forget about negotiating with Israel. Just pressure the international community to force Israel to comply with the resolution and surrender up all that you demand.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians are not wasting any time by waiting for the international community to act against Israel on their behalf. Rather, they are thinking of ways of taking advantage of the UNSC vote to promote their campaign to isolate and delegitimize Israel, especially in the international arena. One thing is certain: Abbas and his Palestinian Authority cronies are not planning to return to the negotiating table with Israel. In fact, they are more belligerent, confrontational and defiant than ever.

In the days following the UNSC vote, the voices emerging from Ramallah and the Gaza Strip clearly indicate that Palestinians have put themselves on a collision course with Israel. This bodes badly for any peace process.

Earlier this week, Abbas convened the PLO Executive Committee -- a decision-making body dominated by his loyalists -- to discuss the implications of the new resolution. The declared purpose of the meeting: to discuss the decisions and strategy that the Palestinian leadership needs to take in the aftermath of the resolution.

The decisions announced following the PLO meeting are a clear sign of the new approach that Abbas and the Palestinian leadership have endorsed. The Palestinian leaders have chosen the path of confrontation, and not direct negotiations, with Israel. They see the UNSC resolution, particularly the US abstention, as a charge sheet against Israel that is to be leveraged in their diplomatic effort to force Israel to its knees.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-30-2016, 04:31 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation What Kerry Should Have Said

What Kerry Should Have Said
The Obama administration has intentionally left the door wide open for the U.N. to take further action against Israel.
By Dan Calic


http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...have_said.html


When Secretary of State John Kerry delivered his comprehensive statement on the Arab-Israel conflict in front of a safe audience at the State Department, he took over an hour to defend the decision of the United States to in essence allow passage of the recent UN anti-Israel resolution by abstaining from it, rather than adhering to the longstanding policy of the U.S. to veto such resolutions.

The general thrust of his message was to chastise Israel for building “settlements” on land defined as “occupied Palestinian territory,” as the main obstacle preventing a two-state solution.

In addition to focusing attention on criticizing Israel, Kerry failed to mention some critically important points which are clearly more central to why a two-state solution has failed to materialize.

For example, the most obvious is the fact that Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, who is also seen by most of the world as a moderate, has steadfastly said he will never recognize Israel (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...6#.Vq2rOZv8LIU) as a Jewish state. As I see it, this alone is the single biggest non-starter for a two-state solution. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s consistent commitment to accepting a Palestinian state, demonstrates his desire for mutual recognition, Mr. Kerry conveniently omitted Abbas’s destructive statements on refusing to accept Israel’s right to exist.

How realistic is a two-state solution when one side won’t even recognize the other’s right to exist?

Mr. Kerry emphatically stated the U.S. opposition to terror and incitement. However, empty statements like this have been made on numerous occasions by the American administration. What good are such statements if they are not backed up by tangible action?

The PA receives hundreds of millions of dollars (http://israelipalestinian.procon.org...stionID=000592) in financial aid from many countries, most of it from the U.S. The PA in turn uses a portion of this international aid to line the pockets of terrorists who have murdered Israelis. This financial windfall allows their families a living standard which is five times greater than the average Palestinian. Did Mr. Kerry say or even hint that the U.S. would suspend all financial aid to the PA to demonstrate how strongly they feel about the need to stop terrorism? He did not. Actions speak louder than words.

The constitution of Abbas’s Fatah party explicitly calls for the destruction of the “Zionist entity (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...rticle=1704),” which in plain words means Israel. Did Mr. Kerry make any mention of this? Moreover, one can only imagine what he might say if Israel’s constitution called for the destruction of a Palestinian state. Heaven forbid!

The official emblem of the Fatah party shows one state, not two. The one state covers the entire area of Israel, and shows every square inch of land as one state of “Palestine.” Their emblem also includes weapons of war, suggesting their goal is to destroy Israel through violence. Again Kerry is silent.

If Mahmoud Abbas wants to be seen as a serious peace partner, would it be too much to suggest that he publically condemn the plethora of terror attacks the Palestinians have perpetrated against innocent Israeli civilians? Not only has Abbas failed to condemn such attacks, he and his party have continuously glorified these murderers (https://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=825).

Kerry also downplayed the U.S. role in the anti-Israel UN resolution, suggesting the U.S. was not involved in composing, or sponsoring it. Yet by abstaining, as the Obama administration knows full well, it was as if they voted for it, because they chose not to use their veto power, which allowed it to pass.

With its passing the Obama administration has intentionally left the door wide open for the UN to take further action against Israel.

With only days remaining in the current administration, the timing of Kerry’s speech was more about punctuating the anti-Israel tenor of the Obama administration with one last trumpet blast about land for peace. However, all one needs to do is look at what happened when Israel evacuated the Gaza Strip after 38 years. They were rewarded with three wars and 20,000 rockets.

If the Obama administration is truly as concerned about Israel’s security as Kerry states, their failure to hold the Palestinians accountable for their wanton terror renders any statements about understanding Israel’s need for security meaningless.

Since the UN resolution cannot be reversed, the Obama administration has knowingly done two things:

1. They have put the incoming Trump administration in a difficult position.
2. Obama has placed a nail in the coffin of his relationship with Israel. With the door now open for further punitive UN action against Israel, his administration will go down in history has the most anti-Israel administration ever.

One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to recognize the two sides of the conflict have entirely different agendas. For not recognizing this and blaming Israel for being the obstacle to peace, the Obama administration has reduced itself to open hypocrisy by ignoring their own oft-stated commitment to Israel’s security.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...have_said.html
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 12-30-2016 at 04:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-30-2016, 05:25 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default Obama and israel, strike and counter-strike

OBAMA AND ISRAEL, STRIKE AND COUNTER-STRIKE
The next stage in Obama's all-out assault on Israel.
By Caroline Glick


http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2653...caroline-glick


Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

UN Security Council Resolution 2334 was the first prong of outgoing President Barack Obama’s lame duck campaign against Israel.

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech on Wednesday was the second.

On January 15, stage 3 will commence in Paris.

At France’s lame duck President François Hollande’s international conference, the foreign ministers of some 50 states are expected to adopt as their own Kerry’s anti-Israel principles.

The next day it will be Obama’s turn. Obama can be expected to use the occasion of Martin Luther King Jr. Day to present the Palestinian war to annihilate Israel as a natural progression from the American Civil Rights movement that King led 50 years ago.

Finally, sometime between January 17 and 19, Obama intends for the Security Council to reconvene and follow the gang at the Paris conference by adopting Kerry’s positions as a Security Council resolution. That follow-on resolution may also recognize “Palestine” and grant it full membership in the UN.

True, Kerry said the administration will not put forward another Security Council resolution.

But as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained in his response to Kerry’s address, there is ample reason to suspect that France or Sweden, or both, will put forth such a resolution. Since the draft will simply be a restatement of Kerry’s speech, Obama will not veto it.

Whether or not Obama gets his second Security Council resolution remains to be seen. But whether he succeeds or fails, he’s already caused most of the damage. A follow-on resolution will only amplify the blow Israel absorbed with 2334.

Resolution 2334 harms Israel in two ways. First, it effectively abrogates Resolution 242 from 1967 which formed the basis of Israeli policy-making for the past 49 years. Second, 2334 gives a strategic boost to the international campaign to boycott the Jewish state.

Resolution 242 anchored the cease-fire between Israel and its neighbors at the end of the Six Day War. It stipulated that in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel’s right to exist in secure and defensible borders, Israel would cede some of the territories it took control over during the war.

Resolution 242 assumed that Israel has a right to hold these areas and that an Israeli decision to cede some of them to its neighbors in exchange for peace would constitute a major concession.

Resolution 242 is deliberately phrased to ensure that Israel would not be expected to cede all of the lands it took control over in the Six Day War. The resolution speaks of “territories,” rather than “the territories” or “all the territories” that Israel took control over during the war.

Resolution 2334 rejects 242’s founding assumptions.

Resolution 2334 asserts that Israel has no right to any of the lands it took control over during the war. From the Western Wall to Shiloh, from Hebron to Ariel, 2334 says all Israeli presence in the areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines is crime.

Given that Israel has no right to hold territory under 2334, it naturally follows that the Palestinians have no incentive to give Israel peace. So they won’t. The peace process, like the two-state solution, ended last Friday night to the raucous applause of all Security Council members.

As for the boycott campaign, contrary to what has been widely argued, 2334 does not strengthen the boycott of “settlements.” It gives a strategic boost to the boycott of Israel as a whole.

It calls on states “to distinguish in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”

Since no Israeli firm makes that distinction, all Israeli economic activity is now threatened with boycott. Tnuva is an “occupation” dairy because it supplies communities beyond the 1949 lines.

Bank Hapoalim is an “occupation” bank because it operates ATM machines in post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem. The Fox clothing chain is an “occupation” chain because it has a store in Gush Etzion. And so on and so forth.

Resolution 2334 gives Europe and its NGOs a green light to wage a complete trade and cultural boycott against all of Israel.

Obama is not using his final weeks in office to wage war on Israel because he hates Netanyahu.

He is not deliberately denying 3,500 years of Jewish history in the Land of Israel because the Knesset is set to pass the Regulations Law that will make it marginally easier for Jews to exercise property rights in Judea and Samaria, as Kerry and UN Ambassador Samantha Power claimed.

Obama’s onslaught against Israel is the natural endpoint of a policy he has followed since he first entered the White House. In June 2009, Obama denied the Jews’ 3,500 years of history in the Land of Israel in his speech in Cairo before an audience packed with members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Instead of the truth, Obama adopted the Islamist propaganda lie that Israel was established because Europe felt guilty about the Holocaust.

Throughout his presidency, Obama has rejected the guiding principle of Resolution 242. His antisemitic demand that Israel deny its Jewish citizens their civil and property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria simply because they are Jews is just as antithetical to 242 as is Resolution 2334.

In his speech, Kerry repeatedly castigated the government while flattering the Israeli Left in yet another attempt to divide and polarize Israeli society. Kerry’s professed support for the Israeli Left is deeply ironic because Israeli leftists are the primary casualties of Obama’s anti-Israel assault.

In the post-242 world that Obama initiated, the UN makes no distinction between Jerusalem and Nablus, between Gush Etzion and Jenin, or between Ma’aleh Adumim and Ramallah. In this world, Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog’s plan to retain a mere 2-3% of Judea and Samaria is no more acceptable than Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett’s plan to apply Israeli law to 60% of the area or to other plans calling for Israeli law to be applied to all of Judea and Samaria. All are equally unlawful. All are equally unacceptable.

For the next three weeks, the government’s focus must be centered on Obama and minimizing the damage he is able to cause Israel. Since Israel cannot convince Hollande to cancel his conference or Obama not to give his speech, Israeli efforts must be concentrated on scuttling Obama’s plan to enact a follow-on resolution.

To scuttle another resolution, Israel needs to convince seven members of the Security Council not to support it. Only measures that secure the support of nine out of 15 Security Council members are permitted to come to a vote. The states that are most susceptible to Israeli lobbying are Italy, Ethiopia, Japan, Egypt, Uruguay, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Russia.

Netanyahu’s furious response to 2334 advance the goal of blocking a vote on a follow-on resolution in two ways. First, they create Israeli leverage in seeking to convince member states to oppose voting on an additional resolution before January 20.

Second, Netanyahu’s seemingly unrestrained response to the Obama administration’s onslaught enables Donald Trump to join him in pressuring Security Council members to oppose bringing a new resolution for a vote.

By taking an extreme position of total rejection of Obama’s actions, Netanyahu is enabling Trump to block a vote while striking a moderate tone.

In three weeks, Obama’s war with Israel will end. His final legacy – the destruction of the landfor- peace paradigm and the two-state policy-making model – obligate Israel, for the first time in 50 years, to determine by itself its long-term goals in relation to the international community, the Palestinians and Judea and Samaria.

Regarding the international community, the Security Council opened the door for its members to boycott Israel. As a result, Israel should show the UN and its factotums the door. Israel should work to de-internationalize the Palestinian conflict by expelling UN personnel from its territory.

The same is the case with the EU. Once Britain exits the EU, Israel should end the EU’s illegal operations in Judea and Samaria and declare EU personnel acting illegally persona non grata.

As for the Palestinians, Resolution 2334 obligates Israel to reconsider its recognition of the PLO. Since 1993, Israel has recognized the PLO despite its deep and continuous engagement in terrorism. Israel legitimized the PLO because the terrorist group was ostensibly its partner in peace. Now, after the PLO successfully killed the peace process by getting the Security Council to abrogate 242, Israel’s continued recognition of the PLO makes little sense. Neither PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas nor his deputies in Fatah – convicted, imprisoned mass murderer and terrorism master Marwan Barghouti, and Jibril Rajoub who said he wishes he had a nuclear bomb so he could drop it on Israel and who tried to get Israel expelled from FIFA – has any interest in recognizing Israel, let alone making peace with it. The same of course can be said for the PLO’s coalition partner Hamas.

An Israeli decision to stop recognizing the PLO will also have implications for the Trump administration.

In the aftermath of 2334, calls are steadily mounting in Congress for the US cancel its recognition of the PLO and end US financial support for the Palestinian Authority. If Israel has already ended its recognition of the PLO, chances will rise that the US will follow suit. Such a US move will have positive strategic implications for Israel.

There is also the question of the Palestinian militias that are deployed to Judea and Samaria as part of the peace process that Obama and the PLO officially ended last Friday. In the coming months, Israel will need to decide what to do about these hostile militias that take their orders from leaders who reject peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Finally, there are the territories themselves. For 50 years, Israel has used the land-for-peace paradigm as a way not to decide what to do with Judea and Samaria. Now that 242 has been effectively abrogated, Israel has to decide what it wants.

The no-brainer is to allow Jews to build wherever they have the legal right to build. If the UN says Israel has no rights to Jerusalem, then Israel has no reason to distinguish between Jerusalem and Elon Moreh.

More broadly, given that for the foreseeable future, there will be no Palestinian Authority interested in making peace with Israel, Israel needs to think about the best way to administer Judea and Samaria going forward. The obvious step of applying Israeli law to Area C now becomes almost inarguable.

Shortly before Obama took office eight years ago, he promised to “fundamentally transform” America. Trump’s election scuttled any chance he had of doing so.

But by enabling Resolution 2334 to pass in the Security Council, Obama has succeeded in fundamentally transforming the nature of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Israel’s actions in the coming weeks will determine whether it is fundamentally transformed for better or for worse.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2653...caroline-glick
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-30-2016, 05:40 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Kerry's Speech Will Make Peace Harder

Kerry's Speech Will Make Peace Harder
By Alan M. Dershowitz


December 29, 2016
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9...-israel-speech


What if the Secretary of State gave a policy speech and no one cared? Because Secretary Kerry's speech came after its abstention on the Security Council vote, few in Israel will pay any attention to anything he said. Had the speech came before the abstention, there would have been some possibility of it influencing the debate within Israel. But following the U.S. abstention, Kerry has lost all credibility with Israelis across the political spectrum.

This is why his speech wasn't even aired live on Israeli TV.

The speech itself was as one-sided as the abstention. It failed to mention the repeated offers from Israel to end the occupation and settlements, and to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza: Arafat's rejection of the Clinton-Barak proposals in 2000-2001: and Abbas' failure to respond to the Olmert offer in 2008. To fail to mention these important points is to demonstrate the bias of the speaker.


Kerry also discussed the Palestinian refugees, without even mentioning the equal member of Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries. If Palestinian refugees deserve compensation, why don't Jewish refugees deserve the same?

Finally Kerry seemed to confirm that in his view any changes from the pre-1967 lines would not be recognized without mutual agreement. This means that the prayer plaza at the Western Wall, the access roads to Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus, and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem are now all illegally occupied. This is, of course, a non-starter for Israelis. It is also wrong as a matter of history and law. Jordan captured these historically Jewish areas in 1948, when all the surrounding Arab countries attacked the new Jewish nation in an attempt to destroy it. Jordan's illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Jews was accompanied by the destruction of synagogues, cemeteries, and schools, and the bringing in of Arab settlers to move into the Jewish homes. When Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967, Israel recaptured these Jewish areas and allowed Jews to return to them. That is not an illegal occupation. It is a liberation.

By failing to distinguish between settlement expansion deep into the West Bank and reclaiming historical Jewish areas in the heart of Jerusalem, Kerry made the same fundamental error that the Security Council resolution made. Moreover, equating Jewish Jerusalem with Amona and other Jewish settlements deep in the West Bank plays into the hands of Jewish hard right extremists who also believe there is no difference between Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria: both are equally part of the historic Jewish homeland. Kerry thinks they are equally illegal; the right wing extremists believe they are equally legal. Both wrongly believe they are equal.

Kerry's one-sidedness was also evident in his failure to press the Palestinian leadership to accept Netanyahu's open offer to begin negotiations immediately with no preconditions. Instead, he seemed to justify the Palestinian unwillingness to enter into negotiations now.

Kerry's pessimism about the two-state solution poses the danger of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The existing settlements -- even if expanded -- do not pose any danger to the two-state solution, if the Palestinians really want their own state more than they want there not to be a Jewish state. A contiguous Palestinian state is certainly possible even if all the existing settlements were to remain. Israel proved that in Gaza when it dismantled every single Jewish settlement and evacuated every single Jew from the Gaza strip. It is simply a historical geographical and logical error to assume that continuing settlement building -- whether one agrees with it or not, and I do not -- dooms the two-state solution. To the contrary, settlement expansion is the consequence of Palestinian of the Palestinian refusal to accept repeated offers from Israeli governments to end the occupation and settlements in exchange for peace.

The primary barrier to the two-state solution remains the Palestinian unwillingness to accept the U.N. resolution of 1947 calling for two states for two peoples -- the Jewish people and the Arab people. This means explicit recognition by Palestinians to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Kerry did not sufficiently address this issue.

The most important point Kerry made is that the Obama administration will not unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, without an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. He also implied that U.S. will not push for any additional Security Council resolution. Kerry's speech is therefore just that: a speech with little substance and no importance. It will be quickly forgotten along with the many other one-sided condemnations of Israel that litter the historical record.

Kerry would have done a real service to peace if he had pressed the Palestinian leadership to come to the negotiation table as hard as he pressed the Israeli leadership to end settlement expansions. But his one-sided presentation did not move the peace process forward. Let us hope it does not set it back too far. What a missed opportunity -- a tragedy that could have been easily averted by a more balanced approach both at the Security Council and the Kerry speech.

I hope the Trump administration will understand, and act on, the reality that the real barrier to peace is the unwillingness of the Palestinian authority to sit down and negotiate with Israel, with each side making painful compromises, and both sides agreeing to end the conflict once and for all.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-30-2016, 05:44 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Angry UN, Obama Further Radicalize Palestinians


UN, Obama Further Radicalize Palestinians
By Khaled Abu Toameh


December 29, 2016
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9...a-palestinians


Last week's UN Security Council resolution sent the following message to the Palestinians: Forget about negotiating. Just pressure the international community to force Israel to surrender up all that you demand.

Abbas and his cronies are more belligerent and defiant than ever. They have chosen the path of confrontation, and not direct negotiations -- to force Israel to its knees.

One of Abbas's close associates hinted that the resolution should be regarded as a green light not only to boycott Israel, but also to use violence against it, to "bolster the popular resistance" against Israel -- code for throwing stones and firebombs, and carrying out stabbing and car-ramming attacks against Israelis.

The resolution has also encouraged the Palestinians to pursue their narrative that Jews have no historical, religious or emotional attachment to Jerusalem or any other part of Israel.

The Gaza-based Hamas and Islamic Jihad see the resolution as another step toward their goal of replacing Israel with an Islamic empire. When Hamas talks about "resistance," it means suicide bombings and rockets against Israel -- it does not believe in "light" terrorism such as stones and stabbings.

The UN's highly touted "victory," is a purely Pyrrhic one, in fact a true defeat to the peace process and to the few Arabs and Muslims who still believe in the possibility of coexistence with Israel.

Buoyed by the latest United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements as illegal, Palestinian leaders are now threatening to step up their diplomatic warfare against Israel -- a move that is sure to sabotage any future effort to revive the moribund peace process. Other Palestinians, meanwhile, view the resolution as license to escalate "resistance" attacks on Israel. By "resistance," of course, they mean terror attacks against Israel.

The UNSC resolution sent the following message to the Palestinians: Forget about negotiating with Israel. Just pressure the international community to force Israel to comply with the resolution and surrender up all that you demand.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians are not wasting any time by waiting for the international community to act against Israel on their behalf. Rather, they are thinking of ways of taking advantage of the UNSC vote to promote their campaign to isolate and delegitimize Israel, especially in the international arena. One thing is certain: Abbas and his Palestinian Authority cronies are not planning to return to the negotiating table with Israel. In fact, they are more belligerent, confrontational and defiant than ever.

In the days following the UNSC vote, the voices emerging from Ramallah and the Gaza Strip clearly indicate that Palestinians have put themselves on a collision course with Israel. This bodes badly for any peace process.

Earlier this week, Abbas convened the PLO Executive Committee -- a decision-making body dominated by his loyalists -- to discuss the implications of the new resolution. The declared purpose of the meeting: to discuss the decisions and strategy that the Palestinian leadership needs to take in the aftermath of the resolution.

The decisions announced following the PLO meeting are a clear sign of the new approach that Abbas and the Palestinian leadership have endorsed. The Palestinian leaders have chosen the path of confrontation, and not direct negotiations, with Israel. They see the UNSC resolution, particularly the US abstention, as a charge sheet against Israel that is to be leveraged in their diplomatic effort to force Israel to its knees.

The PLO decisions include, among other things, an appeal to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to launch an "immediate judicial investigation into Israeli colonial settlements on the land of the independent State of Palestine." Another decision envisages asking Switzerland to convene a meeting to look into ways of forcing Israel to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The Geneva Convention, adopted in 1949, defines "humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone."

The appeal to the ICC and Switzerland is part of Abbas's strategy to "internationalize" the conflict with Israel, by involving as many parties as possible. In this context, Abbas is hoping that the UNSC resolution will ensure the "success" of the upcoming French-initiated Middle East peace conference, which is slated to convene in Paris next month. For Abbas, the conference is another tool to isolate Israel in the international community, and depict it as a country that rejects peace with its Arab neighbors.

In addition, Abbas and his lieutenants in Ramallah are now seeking to exploit the UNSC resolution to promote boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel:

"The PLO Executive Committee renews its call to the world countries for a comprehensive and full boycott of Israeli colonialist settlements in all fields, as well as all companies working in or dealing with these settlements."

One of Abbas's close associates, Mohamed Shtayyeh, hinted that the UNSC resolution should be regarded as a green light not only to boycott Israel, but also to use violence against it. He said that this is the time to "bolster the popular resistance" against Israel. "Popular resistance" is code for throwing stones and petrol bombs and carrying out stabbing and car-ramming attacks against Israelis.

The UNSC resolution has also encouraged the Palestinians to pursue their narrative that Jews have no historical, religious or emotional attachment to Jerusalem, or any other part of Israel. Sheikh Ekrimah Sabri, a leading Palestinian Islamic cleric and preacher at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, was quick to declare that the Western Wall, the holiest Jewish site in Jerusalem, belongs only to Muslims. Referring to the wall by its Islamic name, Sheikh Sabri announced: "The Al-Buraq Wall is the western wall of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Muslims cannot give it up."

While Abbas and his Palestinian Authority consider the UNSC resolution a license to proceed with their diplomatic warfare to delegitimize and isolate Israel, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the two groups that seek the elimination of Israel, are also celebrating. The two Gaza-based groups see the resolution as another step toward achieving their goal of replacing Israel with an Islamic empire. Leaders and spokesmen of Hamas and Islamic Jihad were among the first Palestinians to heap praise on the UNSC members who voted in favor of the resolution. They are also openly stating that the resolution authorizes them to step up the "resistance" against Israel in order to "liberate all of Palestine."

"Resistance is the only means to end the settlements," said a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip. "We appreciate the position of those countries that voted against settlements." He also seized the opportunity to renew Hamas's demand that the Palestinian Authority stop all forms of cooperation with Israel, first and foremost security coordination.

When Hamas talks about "resistance," it means launching suicide bombings and rockets against Israel. The Islamist movement does not believe in "light" terrorism such as stones and knife stabbings against Jews.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, who is based in Qatar, reacted to the UNSC vote by saying that the world should now support his movement's terror campaign against Israel:

"We want the world to stand with the Palestinian resistance because it is just... The armed resistance is the path to liberate Palestine and Jerusalem. Hamas is continuing to manufacture and smuggle weapons in preparation for a confrontation with Israel."

Mashaal did not forget to praise the US Administration's abstention as a "correction of some American policies."

Islamic Jihad, for its part, characterized the UNSC resolution as a "victory" for the Palestinians, because it enables them to "isolate and boycott Israel" and file charges against it with international institutions. Daoud Shehab, one of the leaders of Islamic Jihad, added that the resolution means that Arabs should stop any effort to "normalize" relations with Israel or conduct security cooperation with it. The Arabs and Muslims should now work toward confronting and deterring Israel, he said.

Clearly, Hamas and Islamic Jihad see the UNSC resolution as a warning to all Arabs and Muslims against seeking any form of "normalization" with Israel. The two groups are referring to the Palestinian Authority, whose security forces continue to conduct security coordination with Israel in the West Bank, and to those Arab countries that have been rumored to be moving toward some form of rapprochement with Israel. The UN's highly touted "victory" is a purely Pyrrhic one, in fact a true defeat to the peace process and to the few Arabs and Muslims who still believe in the possibility of coexistence with Israel.

Thus, the UNSC resolution already has had several consequences, none of which will enhance peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Apart from giving a green light to Palestinian groups that wish to destroy Israel, the resolution has prompted Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to toughen their stance, and appear to be more radical than the radicals.

Far from moving the region toward peace, the resolution has encouraged the Palestinians to move forward in two parallel paths -- one toward a diplomatic confrontation with Israel in the international arena, and the other in increased terror attacks against its people. The coming weeks and months will witness mounting violence on the part of Palestinians toward Israelis -- a harmful legacy of the Obama Administration.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-30-2016, 06:20 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Our World: Obama’s war against America

Our World: Obama’s war against America
Obama’s strategic campaign against his country can only be defeated by a counter campaign by his successor.
By Caroline Glick


http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-Wor...America-476598


In 1989, following her tenure as President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick described how the Palestinians have used the UN to destroy Israel.

Following outgoing US President Barack Obama’s assault on Israel at the UN Security Council last Friday, longtime UN observer Claudia Rossett wrote an important article at PJMedia where she recalled Kirkpatrick’s words.

In “How the PLO was legitimized,” published in Commentary, Kirkpatrick said that Yasser Arafat and the PLO worked “to come to power through international diplomacy – reinforced by murder.”

Kirkpatrick explained, “The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an ‘international peace conference.’ But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.”

As Rossett noted, in falsely arguing that Obama’s support for Friday’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is in line with Reagan’s policies, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power deliberately distorted the historical record of US policy toward Israel and the PLO-led UN onslaught against the Jewish state.

As Rosett noted, in stark contrast to Power’s self-serving lie, neither Reagan nor George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush would have ever countenanced a resolution like 2334.

Obama’s predecessors’ opposition to the war against Israel at the UN was not merely an expression of their support for Israel. They acted also out of a fealty to US power, which is directly targeted by that war.

It is critical that we understand how this is the case, and why the implications of Resolution 2334 are disastrous to the US itself.

Resolution 2334 is being presented as an “anti-settlement” resolution. But it is not an anti-settlement resolution.

Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and neighborhoods in Jerusalem are being used – as they always have been used – as a means of delegitimizing the Jewish state as a whole, and legitimizing Palestinian terrorists and Islamic terrorists more generally. Resolution 2334 serves to criminalize Israel and its people and to undermine Israel’s right to exist, while embracing Palestinian terrorists and empowering them in their war to annihilate Israel.

America’s historic refusal to countenance such actions at the UN Security was never a purely altruistic position. It was also a stand for American power and the inherent justice of American superpower status and global leadership.

Throughout most of its history, the UN has served as a proxy battlefield first of the Cold War, and since the destruction of the Soviet Union, for the war against the US-led free world. Beginning in the early 1960s, the Soviets viewed the political war against Israel at the UN as a means to undermine the moral basis for the US-led West. If Israel, the only human rights defending state in the Middle East, and the US’s only stable ally in the region could be delegitimized, then the very coherence of the US-led Western claim to moral superiority against the totalitarian Soviet empire would be undone.

Hence, the first Soviet attempt at the UN to castigate Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement, as a form of racism was made in 1965, two years before Israel took control of Judea and Samaria and united Jerusalem in the Six Day War.

That attempt failed. But nine years later the wording first raised in 1965 was adopted by the UN General Assembly which passed resolution 3379 slandering libeled Zionism as “a form of racism.”

With their automatic majority in the General Assembly and all other UN organs, the Soviets used the Palestinian war against Israel as a proxy for their war against America. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the Islamic bloc, backed by members of the former Soviet bloc, the non-aligned bloc and the Europeans continued their campaign. The only thing that kept them from winning was the US and its Security Council veto.

When Obama chose to lead the anti-Israel lynch mob at the Security Council last week, he did more than deliver the PLO terrorist organization its greatest victory to date against Israel. He delivered a strategic victory to the anti-American forces that seek to destroy the coherence of American superpower status. That is, he carried out a strategic strike on American power.

By leading the gang rape of Israel on Friday, Obama undermined the rationale for American power. Why should the US assert a sovereign right to stand against the radical forces that control the UN? If US agrees that Israel is committing a crime by respecting the civil and human rights of its citizens to live in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, then how can America claim that it has the right to defend its own rights and interests, when those clash with the views of the vast majority of state members of the UN? Following Obama’s assault on Israel Friday, Senators Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz called for the US to end its financial support for the UN at least until the Security Council abrogates Resolution 2334. They are correct.

But it isn’t anger at how Obama has and is expected to continue to use the Security Council to imperil Israel that should inform the incoming Trump administration’s actions. Rather a determination to maintain US power and secure its national security requires that the UN be permanently defunded and defanged.

For eight years, through his embrace and empowerment of US enemies, betrayal and weakening of US allies, emaciation of the US armed forces and repeated apologies for America’s past assertions of global leadership, Obama has waged a determined war against US superpower status. The last vestige of the strategic and moral rationale for US power was the protection America afforded Israel at the Security Council.

Now with that gone, it has become a strategic imperative for the US to render the UN irrelevant. This can only be undertaken by permanently defunding this corrupt institution and using the US’s Security Council veto to end the UN’s role as the arbiter of international peace and security, by among other things, ending the deployment of UN forces to battle zones.

Only by stripping the UN of its financial wherewithal to assault US allies and American interests and by denying it the institutional and operational capacity to serve as an arbiter of disputes morally and legally superior to the US can America protect its sovereignty and advance its interests.

Only by denying those associated with the UN the prestige that confers to an institution legitimized by democrat and autocrat alike can the incoming Trump administration rebuild America’s reputation and power.

It is not surprising that Obama is carrying out the final act of his presidency at the UN. Obama has made no attempt to hide his desire to eliminate America’s independence of action. By elevating the post of UN ambassador to a cabinet level position at the outset of his presidency, Obama signaled his conviction that this corrupt institution is the equal of the US government.

This early signal was transformed into an open policy when Obama used the Security Council as a means to bypass the US Senate in implementing his nuclear deal with Iran.

Now, by ignoring the near consensus position of both parties that the US should block anti-Israel resolutions from being adopted at the Security Council and plotting further action against Israel at the Security Council in his final weeks in office, Obama has made clear his position and his aim.

Obama is not leading the war against Israel at the Security Council simply to advance the PLO’s war for the annihilation of Israel. He is acting in this manner to undermine the legitimacy of American power.

Obama’s strategic campaign against his country can only be defeated by a counter campaign by his successor.

Luckily, by eschewing multilateral entanglements in favor of bilateral partnerships during his presidential campaign, President-elect Donald Trump has demonstrated that he understands the threat and will adopt the only possible means of countering it. To reassert and rebuild the rationale for American power, the Trump administration must permanently defund the UN and reject its legitimacy as an institution of global governance.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-Wor...America-476598

Caroline Glick once again exposes Obama for the LIAR he is!!! Paparock
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 12-30-2016 at 06:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
Israel Forum
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum