Tag Archive for: Israel

Students for Justice in Palestine caught in a lie

/in , , , , /by

sjp logoArlington, TX – Leadership of Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Arlington, Texas (SJP UTA), which has been embroiled in an anti-Semitism scandal, are claiming that they don’t know former friend and colleague Nancy Salem. They are also denying that any of their members have made anti-Semitics comments.

Canary Mission’s evidence concludes that both of these claims are flagrant lies.

Following the release of a report by campus watchdog Canary Mission, SJP UTA have sought to distance themselves from Salem. The former pre-school teacher who called to “kill some Jews” on Twitter, was fired yesterday from her job at Children’s Courtyard amidst calls for the school to shut down.

In response, SJP UTA yesterday posted a statement on their primary Facebook page making two absurd denials. The first is that Salem has “never been associated with SJP” and second that “Sjp has never had any members make any anti-semitic [sic] statements.”

SJP UTA latest hires.png

Canary Mission’s investigation of the activists Twitter interactions revealed that at least half a dozen SJP UTA members implicated in Canary Mission’s expose, including their Vice President, are closely acquainted with her.

Here is Salem wishing their Vice President a happy birthday last year:

Though never a student at UTA, a point made clear in Canary Mission’s profile on her, Salem was clearly affiliated with the SJP UTA chapter. SJP UTA have a second Facebook account, which can still be viewed now, even though since our expose the names of those individuals implicated in their anti-Semitism scandal have since been removed and there is virtually no content. Nancy Salem was one of those individuals whose name was removed.

Nancy_Salem_FB.jpg

Below are examples of interactions between Salem and the above mentioned SJP UTA activists clearly showing that they know her:

Lastly, here are just two examples conclusively showing just three SJP UTA members together with their anti-Semitic statements. The rest can be found on the Canary Mission UTA page.

Sweet and Sour Paris Peace Conference

/in , , , /by

Given a choice, monsieur the diplomat, between two International Peace Conferences-Kazakhstan for Syria or Paris for the Middle East- which would you prefer? Would you like to plough your brain trying to sort out the Islamist rebels from the plain Islamists, finding someone less brutal to replace Assad and a few factions to support him, resisting pressure from the Russians, Iranians, Turks, Hezbollah and the like? Wouldn’t you rather sit around a table in Paris, rubbing shoulders with distinguished ladies and gentlemen, and repeating that it is urgent to settle the “oldest conflict” by finally implementing the oldest solution: two states side by side in security?

For low ranking journalists that didn’t have the chance to come anywhere near the delegations, “covering” the Conference meant  receiving the elevated  address of Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault who would present the conclusions reached by the diplomats united in a spirit of sincere friendship for the parties to the conflict. (The day after the Conference, that hasn’t generated much interest worldwide, documents in several languages and videos of some speeches were posted on the Ministry website.)

I easily found a seat in the second row. Most of the people around me were speaking Arabic. I don’t usually cover events in the ministries. My stamping ground is more in the neighborhood of the UPJF, the BNVCA, and defamation hearings at the Palais de Justice. I greeted Gideon Kuntz, didn’t see any familiar faces… until a woman took a seat on my left, turned to me, and said: “I know you.” Right. We met about ten days ago at a party thrown by a journalist friend.  Hustle and bustle near the door. The minister will enter any minute. My fellow American gives me some inside information: “A little while ago I was sitting next to a Palestinian. He told me that the father of one of the female soldiers killed in Jerusalem wrote on his Facebook page, ‘What can you expect when we keep them cooped up like that?'” Brushing aside a dozen reactions that tumbled around in my mind, I answered like a good journalist: “Could be. We’d have to verify it.” She shrugs: “It’s Facebook.” And I say to myself: “It’s a Palestinian.” The minister walks in, accompanied by about 15 people that line up along the wall.

Busy taking notes in my red moleskin notebook with my real fountain pen, I don’t even have the fun of observing the audience. Except for the bald head of Harlem Désir, foreign relations secretary of the Socialist party, seated right in front of me. I wished I could remind him of his gallantry that day in 1990 when a momentous wind storm caught us on the top floor of the Arche de la Défense, during an encounter with delegates from Central Europe. Maybe they represented the new democracies? The wind forced open the sliding glass doors and came barreling into the hall. You could see the wind, it was light green and terrifying. After a long wait someone finally came to take us to an elevator that brought us down to an exit at the top of a long flight of stairs. The wind was too strong, it almost blew me away, I grabbed onto Harlem Désir who escorted me all the way to the metro entrance. Those were different times.

Today, too, the times have changed. The arrogant disdain for Israel that marked the first yeas of the century has morphed here into moderate, measured benevolence, all soft and gentle. Everything about the Conference, from the motivation, hopes, and concerns, to the final recommendations is dipped in the honey of sincere egalitarian friendship. Everything is unanimous, they are all united in the same spirit, they all condemned the horrible terror attack in Jerusalem and all forms of violence and incitement to violence. But. But resolution 2334 of the UN Security Council denounced the colonization; this decision is “stamped with international legality, it’s serious.” To show just how serious that condemnation is, the minister used a strange expression: “it is the voice of the world that spoke.”

And that was the sense of his whole brief speech. The united assembly of more than 70 countries and organizations had acted like a supreme being that observes, weighs, judges, and speaks in a unanimous voice to say the two-state solution, the only viable solution, is in danger. What can be done to reinforce the engagement of the international community and persuade the conflicting parties to resume negotiations? Because direct negotiations are the only way to solve the conflict. The parameters are known: ’67frontières, major UN resolutions, and the 2002 Arab initiative.  Why not “Auschwitz borders?” Jean-Marc Ayrault could have said it straight out in that honeyed voice, the voice of the world, the voice of sincere friendship for Israelis, for Palestinians… He could have said it that way, without a change of tone, without reservations, in his role as honorable spokesman of the international community that says the Law.

The minister repeats that it is urgent to promote the two-state solution, to convince Israelis and Palestinians to resume direct negotiations that, he says again, are the only way to resolve this conflict that has been going on for 50 years, and “produced” 3 wars since 2006. We cannot have stability in the Middle East without peace between Israel and Palestine, peace that is desired by the entire international community. And so on and so forth. Only good things. Peace and friendship and economic development. We are ready to help, says the minister. Help who? The Palestinians that for decades have been swallowing up exorbitant contributions in the belly of corruption? Europe will be able to help the flourishing super high tech Israeli economy that just wants to keep growing without shackles? What encouragement can be expected from France that voted-in sincere friendship and for the good of Israel-for labeling products from the “colonies”?

The minister concludes modestly: we are realists. It’s step by step, little step by little step that we will reach our goal. And sums up: “This Conference is an outstretched hand.”

Three little questions are taken. Q: Will the communiqué be presented tomorrow at the EU foreign affairs Council and on the 17th at the Security Council?  A: Yes for the EU no for the UN.

Q: You said the transfer of the American embassy to Jerusalem would be a provocation. What will be done if the transfer is in fact made? A: I’ll discuss it with Rex Tillerson.

Q: A few months ago France was prepared to recognize the Palestinian state. Is that still on the table? A: We never said it like that. It was meant to be unilateral. We do not want any misunderstanding on that score. Everything will be done in the spirit of this Conference: subdued, restrained, moderate.

End of story. Gidéon, who had tried in vain to ask a question, drops his arm, exasperated.

I leave the building, brave the icy rain, cross Paris in a packed bus, chilled to the bone, starved (no ministerial petit-four for us), and prepared to face up to one more lost cause before midnight: the second debate of the presidential primaries of the left. But first I dash over to i24 news, the only channel that mentions the peace conference. Big news! The Brits opted out of the voice of the world. They didn’t sign the declaration [and subsequently blocked its adoption by the EU Council]. Did my American neighbor know? How about the Irish correspondent she introduced to me just before we went our separate ways? One thing is certain: Jean-Marc Ayrault knew, all the time he was telling us about the unanimous unanimity. Ça alors…

Having struggled for two weeks to find practical information about the venue and accreditation procedures, I had come to think that the dreaded Conference was virtual. Nothing to compare with the urban effervescence last spring, before the weekly demonstrations against the el Khomri labor reform. There were no signs of prestigious delegations in our city or our media.

So it seems that instead of accelerating the tempo of the latest Palestinian diplomatic offensive that began with the UNESCO resolutions forged to slice the bonds between the Jewish people, the land, and the sacred places, the ghost Paris Peace Conference sabotaged it. Hopes of carrying the conclusions to the Security Council where they would be transformed into a binding resolution are apparently dashed.

The closing address like the Conference itself was a sort of non-sequitur: Divorced from reality, as vague as it was pretentious, devoid of concrete details on the chain of words and deeds that have led the peace process to its current impasse. If the conflict persists, it’s not for lack of benevolent attention from the international community. The territorial Israel-Palestinian conflict that could have been solved by the creation of a Palestinian state is imaginary. What is happening and has been going on for more than 50 years, for more than  1400 years, that produces countless wars and atrocities is the old Islamic vindictive hatred* of Judaism. What is playing out in the Middle East is 21st century jihad conquest held in check by a sovereign Jewish state that rejects the suicidal advice poured on it by an ancien régime that calls itself the “international community.”

We owe ourselves a brief moment of satisfaction at the fiasco of the Paris Conference before we face up to the coming episodes of the saga. If it’s true that they cried victory in Ramallah, we should forget the outright refusal of the “Kerry parameters” hammered out by PLO executive committee’s Mustafa Barghouti:

 “First, you cannot make the issue of Palestinian refugees only an issue of compensation; you cannot deny people their right to return to their home,” Limiting the rights of Palestinian refugees to compensation? Unacceptable! “Second, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would deny the right of the Palestinian people who are citizens of Israel and that is totally unacceptable.” Israel cannot be a Jewish and a democratic state at the same time,” concludes Barghouti, he too speaks the voice of the world.

* Daniel Sibony, Islam, Phobie, Culpabilité

RELATED VIDEO: Fatah’s armed wing hold demonstration.

EDITORS NOTE: The original French version of this column was published by Infoequitable.org. 

Is President Obama Imposing the ‘Auschwitz Border’ on Israel?

/in , , , /by

Introduction

On the cusp of the transition from the Obama to the Trump Administration, Israel has been in the crosshairs of actions at the UN and a Paris meeting convened on January 15, 2017 by outgoing French President Hollande.  Neither Israel nor the Palestinian Authority will be attending the gathering of 72 nations. The Quartet, as well as the 28 Foreign ministers of the EU will also be meeting on it and deciding what script is to be presented at the UNSC meeting on January 17th in New York. One ominous possibility might be a state of Palestine declaration.

Yet, a communique drafted by the U.S. and France and ‘leaked ‘widely proposes ‘coercively’ establishing borders that might imperil Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem and its national security.   That is the pre-1967 June Six Day War border what revered Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban called “the Auschwitz border” dividing Jerusalem, Israel’s eternal capital.  Shoshana Bryen, senior director of the Washington, DC-based Jewish Policy Center in an interview with the co-authors called the proposed borders, “Indefensible. Because you have an eight mile waist between what will be Palestinian artillery in the hills and the Israelis living underneath them. Ronald Reagan explicitly rejected the pre- ’67 borders.”

UN Security Council Resolution 2334

The Paris meeting  was  triggered by the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2334  on December 23, 2016  and a subsequent controversial  speech by outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry at the State Department on  December 28th supporting  resolution 2334. Kerry in his State Department speech called Israel Prime Minister  Benjamin Netanyahu  the head of “the most rightwing  regime in Israeli history, with “an agenda driven by the most extreme elements” for “unfettered settlement construction and  flagrant violation of international law” forcing the end of the peace settlement talks with the Palestinian Authority.  Kerry’s comments were objected to by Netanyahu as “obsessive, unbalanced, “saying that “most of his speech blamed Israel for the lack of peace.”  UK PM Theresa May criticized Kerry’s remarks saying, “We do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally.”  Kerry was also criticized by a number of Republican and Democratic Senators and Congressional Representatives.

On  December 23, 2016, a crucial vote at the United Nation’s Security Council  passed an anti-Israel  Resolution 2334 by a vote of 14 to 0, with the US abstaining.  UNSC Resolution 2334 virtually abrogated Resolutions 242 and 381 passed in the wake of the June 1967 Six Days of War that reunified Israel’s capitol that had guaranteed Israel’s right to negotiate secure borders. Resolution 2334 stated that “Israel‘s settlement activity constitutes a “flagrant violation” of international law and has “no legal validity”. It demanded that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention.”  While UN Resolution 2334 had no ‘coercive’ effect under international law; nevertheless, it represented the first action the Security Council passed since 2009 on this issue.  Moreover, it was the first abstention by a U.S. government since the Carter Administration in 1980.

On January 10, 2017, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu told a visiting U.S. AIPAC delegation in Jerusalem, that, “we have unequivocal evidence the Obama Administration Led UN Resolution [2334] that marked a major break with US policy.”

Background of Israel’s Legal rights to the Land

Under UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 Israel lawfully built what the Jewish nation’s opponents called ‘settlements’.  These were Jewish villages and towns built on lands in Judea and Samaria with deeds conveyed in the Ottoman era.  Nearly 90 percent of population in these Jewish villages and towns in the disputed territories were built on lands originally inhabited by Jews prior to the 1948 -1949 War of Independence for Israel.

In 1979-1980 there was a flurry of  UN Security Council resolutions  seeking to  declare  these disputed territories  part of a future Palestinian State and Jewish  ‘settlements’ illegal.  However,  Eugene Rostow, former  President Johnson era State Department official and  co-author of Resolution 242 with British Foreign Minister Lord Carrington, affirmed Israel’s legal right to the lands under the original British Palestine Mandate in 1922 that also declared the Kingdom of Jordan.   Professor Rostow noted this in an article published in The Yale Journal of International Law, “Palestinian Self-Determination: Possible Futures for the Unallocated Parts of the British Mandate.”  Rostow’s arguments presage what is now occurring at the UN Security and at the Paris meeting, as if this was “deja vu all over again,” as baseball legend Yoga Berra might  say in one of his famous malapropisms.

Rostow cited the precedent of the Palestine Mandate:

The Palestine Mandate was established under the authority of paragraph 8 of Article 22 of the Covenant, which authorized the League Council explicitly to define the terms of a Mandate when the broad general statement of paragraph 1 was insufficient.

The purpose of the Palestine Mandate was “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” The Mandatory government was required to facilitate Jewish immigration and “close settlement” in Palestine, subject to the proviso that the Mandatory government could “postpone or withhold” the application of these (and related) articles of the Mandate in the area of Palestine east of the Jordan River. This was done when Britain established Transjordan as an autonomous province of the Mandate in 1922. But Jewish rights of immigration and close settlement in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, established by the Mandate, have never been qualified.”

Trump Obligations to Israel

During the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing of Trump nominee for Secretary of State, Lax Tillerson, retiring Chief Executive Officer of Exxon Mobil, responded on questions regarding his views of US support for Israel. He said;

Israel is, has always been and remains our most important ally in the region. The UN resolution that was passed, in my view, is not helpful. It actually undermines a good set of conditions for talks to continue. As an attempt to ‘coerce’ Israel to change course that will not lead to a solution. The president-elect has already made it clear that we’re going to meet our obligations to Israel as the most important ally in the region.

One of the expressed obligations of President – elect Trump is the movement of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  While there have been US laws passed in 1990 and 1995 to implement this, waiver provisions were passed by the Clinton, Bush and Obama Administration every six months.  There appears to be momentum to finally achieve the move.  Sites have already been picked out. There is even a compromise solution to make the existing US consulate in Jerusalem as the seat for the US Ambassador effectively making two US consulates one in Jerusalem and the current Embassy in Tel Aviv. Objections to the prospective move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem were reflected in incitement preached at mosques in the Palestinian Territories and East Jerusalem.  That may have motivated a Salafist terrorist to mount a truck ramming in Jerusalem’s Amona killing 4 young IDF officers, injuring 17 alighting from a bus. The perpetrator was killed by an armed guide with the group.

Against this background, Northwest Florida’s Talk Radio Station, 1330amWEBY host, Mike Bates and co-host Jerry Gordon, Senior editor of the New English Review, convened another Middle East Roundtable discussion with Shoshana Bryen, senior director of the Washington, DC-based Jewish Policy Center.

LISTEN to the Podcast of the January 10, 2017 broadcast.  Read the Transcript in two separate posts: Part 1 and 2.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Rex Tillerson is neither a yes man nor will he be boxed in on U.S. foreign policy

/in , , , /by

In a The Daily Signal article titled “9 Issues Discussed at Rex Tillerson’s Confirmation Hearing to Be Trump’s Secretary of State” Josh Siegel reported on the confirmation hearing of U.S. Secretary of State designate Rex Tillerson.

Reading Siegel’s article I came away with two impressions of Mr. Tillerson, first he will not be boxed in and second he is not a yes man. How refreshing.

First let’s look at Tillerson as a man who will not be boxed in when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. Siegel reported:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who ran for president against Trump, pressed Tillerson on whether he backs the assessment of U.S. intelligence agencies about Russia’s election-year hacking.

“Do you believe during the 2016 presidential campaign that Russian intelligence services directed a campaign of measures involving the hacking of emails, the strategic leak of emails, the use of internet trolls, and dissemination of fake news to denigrate a presidential candidate and undermine faith in our election process?” Rubio asked.

Tillerson described the findings by the intelligence agencies as “clearly troubling,” and called cyber attacks from foreign actors such as Russia “the greatest and most complex threat” facing the country today. He labeled Russia’s annexation of Crimea to be “illegal” and proposed tougher measures to combat the Kremlin’s invasion of eastern Ukraine, vowing that he would advocate providing Ukrainian soldiers with weapons.

But Tillerson expressed hope that he could help improve relations with Russia, potentially seeking to ally with it in areas of common interest even if America “will not likely to be ever friends with the Kremlin.”

“Dialogue is critical so these [issues] don’t spin out of control,” Tillerson said. “We need to move Russia from adversary always to partner at times.”

Read more…

Tillerson clearly understands that Russia, and many other countries, act in their own self interests and against the interests of the United States. His reply was measured in that he understood that cyberwarfare is a national security threat, that invading another country is wrong and both must be punished. However, diplomacy is not just about jumping into a hot or cold war, as Senator’s Marco Rubio, John McCain and Lindsey Graham seem to want. Rather it is about pressuring those who would do us harm using all means available. The above interaction shows the sophistication of Tillerson, a man who thinks outside the box. Tillerson’s statement, “We need to move Russia from adversary always to partner at times” is that of a man who understands Russia more than some members of the U.S. Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike. Again, refreshing.

Tillerson is not a yes man for President-elect Trump either. Siegel noted:

In the presidential campaign, Trump questioned the NATO alliance, and said members need to do more to earn the U.S.’ support.

Tillerson expressed a stronger commitment to NATO, promising to follow Article 5 of the treaty that enshrines the principle that an attack against one member is an attack against all.

“The Article 5 commitment is invaluable and the U.S. will stand by the commitment,” Tillerson said.

He also expressed concern for Baltic states that worry about Russian incursion on their borders.

“Our NATO allies are right to be alarmed about a resurgent Russia,” Tillerson said.

[ … ]

In another contrast with Trump, Tillerson did not say he explicitly opposes the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

“I do not oppose TPP, but I share some of Trump’s concerns that it doesn’t fully support American interests,” Tillerson said.

[ … ]

Echoing Exxon Mobil’s evolving calculus on climate change, Tillerson said he recognized the threat of a warming planet, and that the U.S. should “be at the table” in coming up with solutions to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

If confirmed, he said he and others in the Trump administration would review the 180-country Paris climate change agreement before deciding whether to remain party to it.

“It’s important that the United States maintain its seat at the table with the conversations around how to deal with the threats of climate change,” he said.

As chief of Exxon Mobil, Tillerson publicly backed a tax on carbon in 2009, and expressed support for the Paris Agreement in 2015.

Yet, late in the hearing, he seemed to downplay the threat of climate change.

“I don’t see [climate change] as the imminent national security threat as perhaps other do,” Tillerson said.

Read more…

Tillerson will, on some issues, present a President Trump with differing views. That is healthy. It shows that President-elect Trump is filling his cabinet with quality people who think differently than him and provide opposing views. Once again, refreshing.

Donald Trump’s selection says as much about the President-elect as it does about Mr. Tillerson. There is a new way of thinking about foreign policy and a fresh approach that is pro-U.S. interests.

After reading Mr. Tillerson’s testimony it is clear he will not be foreign a policy rubber stamp as were former Secretaries Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and that he will think outside the foreign policy box of the Obama administration.

Very refreshing indeed.

RELATED ARTICLE: Secretary of State Nominee Tillerson Criticizes U.S. Decision to Abstain from UN Israel Vote

Obama administration lied, exposed as architect of anti-Israel UN action

/in , , , , /by

“It also has come to light that Kerry held a meeting in December with senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat. Documents believed to have been leaked by Egypt confirm that Kerry and Erekat discussed forwarding the resolution, a charge that senior White House officials continue to deny.”

The Obama administration will leave behind a long, long record of dishonesty and betrayal.

“White House On Defense After Being Exposed as Architect of Anti-Israel U.N. Action,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 29, 2016:

Senior Obama administration officials are scrambling to provide explanations after multiple reports, including in the Washington Free Beacon, identified the White House as being a chief architect of a recent United Nations resolution condemning the state of Israel, according to conversations with multiple former and current U.S. officials.

On the heels of the hotly contested resolution, which condemned Israel for building homes in its capital, Jerusalem, senior Obama administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, have been identified as leading the charge to ensure the anti-Israel measure won approval by the U.N. Security Council.

The administration’s denials of this charge broke down during the past several days as multiple reporters confirmed the Obama administration worked behind-the-scenes to help shape and forward the resolution.

The Free Beacon disclosed on Monday that Vice President Joe Biden phoned Ukraine’s president to ensure that country voted in favor of the resolution. While the White House issued multiple denials, further reports from Israel and Europe have confirmed a phone call between the leaders did in fact take place.

It also has come to light that Kerry held a meeting in December with senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat. Documents believed to have been leaked by Egypt confirm that Kerry and Erekat discussed forwarding the resolution, a charge that senior White House officials continue to deny.

White House National Security Council official Ned Price described such a meeting as a “total fabrication,” despite public documents highlighting the powwow between Kerry and Erekat.

One senior Obama administration official who spoke to the Free Beacon said the White House did not help draft the resolution, as Israeli leaders have suggested in recent days.

“We’ve been entirely clear that this was an Egyptian resolution,” said the official, explaining that the effort did not originate with the White House. Reports of a meeting between Kerry, Erekat, and White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice are not correct, the official said.

However, these claims have been disputed by multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon both on and off the record about the situation.

Jonathan Schanzer, a Middle East expert and vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon that he spoke with U.S. officials in September who admitted that “a U.N. measure of some shape or form was actively considered,” a charge that runs counter the White House’s official narrative.

“We know that this administration was at a minimum helping to shape a final resolution at the United Nations and had been working on this for months,” Schanzer said.

“This isn’t terribly dissimilar from the administration’s attempts to spin the cash pallets they sent to Iran,” he added, referring to the administration’s efforts to conceal the fact that it sent the Iranian government some $1.7 billion in cash.

“The fact is, the administration has been flagged as being an active participant in this U.N. resolution,” Schanzer said. “Now they wish to try to spin this as inconsequential. This was an attempt by the administration to lead from behind, as they have done countless times in the past and which has failed countless times in the past.”

As with the meeting between Kerry and Erekat, the phone call between Biden and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has been confirmed multiple times by a plethora of sources in the United States, Israel, and Europe following the Free Beacon’s initial report.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a weekly cabinet meeting that “the Obama administration initiated [the resolution], stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed.”

The administration has not yet addressed the discrepancy between its own narrative and that being revealed in the press….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guinea President: “Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, Islam is a religion of peace.”

Spain: Snipers and armed police to guard public areas amid jihad terror fears

From the Sea to the River — Rise of a ‘One State Solution’ in the Middle East

/in , , , , /by

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton told Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam, “Just as a matter of empirical reality, the two-state solution is dead. That’s about the only thing John Kerry came close to getting right yesterday.”

Michael Oren in a Newsweek article titled “With New Resolution, the U.N. Drives Stake Into Israeli-Palestinian Peace Hopes” reports:

When the U.N. Security Council passed its resolution Friday denouncing Israel’s presence in territories it captured in 1967, many ambassadors broke out in applause. The decision, they believed, would deter Israel from further settlement building, advance the peace process, and help achieve a two-state solution. The Middle East and the world would benefit. But, sadly, those expectations—and the ovation they sparked—were misplaced.

[ … ]

The goal of the initiators of the resolution was not to achieve a better two-state solution, I believe, but to deny Israel the right to defend itself and, ultimately, the right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state. [Emphasis added]

On December 28th, 2016 John Kerry gave his final speech as the outgoing U.S. Secretary of State.  Kerry’s “Remarks on Middle East Peace” lasted 1 hour and 13 minutes. Kerry stated:

Today, there are a number – there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both – and it won’t ever really be at peace. Moreover, the Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own with a one-state solution.

There is a great lie in Secretary Kerry’s statement.

Israel has, since its inception, had Jews and Arabs living peacefully together. Moreover, Arab Israelis have realized “their vast potential” achieving economic, political and social gains by living in the Jewish state of Israel. In April of 2016 Israel promoted an Arab police officer to the position of Deputy Commissioner, the highest rank obtained by a Muslim in the nation.

According to a CNN report Deputy Commissioner Jamal Hakrush, “[W]ill be in charge of improving the policing services in Arab neighborhoods and towns in Israel. He will be responsible for establishing police stations in new Arab towns while strengthening the existing stations.” Why increase Arab police presence in Arab towns? To protect Arabs from those radical Islamic terrorists who wish them and others harm. That is called self-determination. Arabs empowered to protect Arab interests and by doing so protecting the interests of Israelis.

Does this not prove Israel is both Jewish and democratic?

Kerry stated, “Let me emphasize, this is not to say that the settlements are the whole or even the primary cause of this conflict. Of course they are not. Nor can you say that if the settlements were suddenly removed, you’d have peace.”

Kerry knew that settlements were not the problem to reaching a peace agreement. The problem is when one side, the Palestinians, refuses to negotiate a peace agreement. They have refused to come to the negotiating table because they want Israel wiped from the map. How do we know this? By their slogan from the “river to the sea.”

So what can a President-elect Trump do to create a lasting peace in the Middle East?

Certainly not doing the same thing his predecessors have done for the past 40 years and expecting different results. He must reverse course by creating a new mantra and the new U.S. policy of “from the sea to the river.” President-elect Trump must not just change course but reverse the direction of U.S. politcy in the Middle East.

Doing the same things his predecessors did and expecting different results is pure insanity.

During his speech Kerry asked, “Is ours the generation that gives up on the dream of a Jewish democratic state of Israel living in peace and security with its neighbors? Because that is really what is at stake.”

The answer can only be a one state solution. Only with a united Israeli state from the sea to the river can the dream of a democratic Jewish state living in peace and security with its Arab neighbors become reality.

Listen to Ambassador Bolton’s full interview on Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM hosed by Raheem Kassam:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The End of Palestine: Israel Has the Opportunity to Reclaim its Nation

A Palestinian state — good for the U.S.?

Obama’s ‘final solution’ for the state of Israel

/in , , , , /by

On December 28th, 2016 John Kerry gave his final speech as the outgoing U.S. Secretary of State.  Kerry’s “Remarks on Middle East Peace” lasted 1 hour and 13 minutes. In his speech Kerry outlined President Obama’s “final solution” for the state of Israel.

One phrase struck me. Kerry stated, “Israel can be Jewish or democratic – not both.”

But Israel is already Jewish and democratic. There have been Israeli Arab members of the Knesset ever since the first Knesset elections in 1949. There are currently 17 Arab members of the Knesset, and 59 former Arab members. Kerry asked:

How would Israel respond to a growing civil rights movement from Palestinians, demanding a right to vote, or widespread protests and unrest across the West Bank? How does Israel reconcile a permanent occupation with its democratic ideals? How does the U.S. continue to defend that and still live up to our own democratic ideals?

Israel already recognizes the right of every Israeli citizen, Jew or Arab or Christian or Druz, el al, to vote. Israel has been dealing with terrorism against the Jewish state since 1949 and throughout its history, from ancient Rome to the PLO and HAMAS.

The U.S. continues to defend Israel because it is the basis, the foundation, of our own democratic ideals. Founding Father John Adams in a letter to F. A. Van der Kemp dated February 16, 1808 wrote:

“I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations …

They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of mankind more and more happily than any other nation, ancient or modern.”

There are no Jewish members of the PLO nor in HAMAS, which controls the Gaza strip. Additionally, those nations surrounding Israel are Muslim and undemocratic, abiding by shariah laws that reject non-Muslims. Why? Because the Koran says so.

So what is Kerry projecting on behalf of President Obama? What has been, and clearly is, Obama’s “final solution” to end the conflict in the Middle East?

Answer: A Jew free Palestinian state.

Kerry focused on Jewish “settlements” in Judea and Samara, historic land that has belong to and had been occupied by, the Jewish people for thousands of years. Kerry sees these settlements as the existential threat to a two state solution stating:

So the settler agenda is defining the future of Israel. And their stated purpose is clear. They believe in one state: greater Israel. In fact, one prominent minister, who heads a pro-settler party, declared just after the U.S. election – and I quote – “the era of the two-state solution is over,” end quote. And many other coalition ministers publicly reject a Palestinian state. And they are increasingly getting their way, with plans for hundreds of new units in East Jerusalem recently announced and talk of a major new settlement building effort in the West Bank to follow.

Then Kerry asks, “So why are we so concerned? Why does this matter? Well, ask yourself these questions: What happens if that agenda succeeds? Where does that lead?”

May I suggest that a one state solution leads to what now exists in the Jewish state of Israel. A pluralistic society where all segments of the population, regardless of religious affiliation or ethnicity, live in peace side by side as individuals.

Kerry laments:

So if there is only one state, you would have millions of Palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank, with no real political rights, separate legal, education, and transportation systems, vast income disparities, under a permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms. Separate and unequal is what you would have. And nobody can explain how that works. Would an Israeli accept living that way? Would an American accept living that way? Will the world accept it?

Under a united Jewish state of Israel Palestinians do have access to real political rights, education, transportation systems, serve in the IDF and have enhanced economic opportunities in what is know as “the startup nation.”

If you want to know what an independent Palestinian state would look like and act just look at the Gaza strip. A radicalized Islamic state that is Jew free where its citizens have no political rights and suffer under a regime more interested in arming itself for the sole purpose of killing non-Muslims and an exporter of terrorism globally.

The only option going forward for President-elect Trump is a one state solution.

As David Friedman, President-elect Trump’s nominee to become the ambassador to Israel said in a pre-election interview with The Algemeiner in early November:

“It is inconceivable there could be a mass evacuation on that magnitude, in the unlikely event that there was an otherwise comprehensive peace agreement,” Friedman said. “It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria to be ‘Judenrein [void of Jews],’ any more than it makes sense for Israel to be ‘Arabrein [void of Arabs].’ It’s not fair.”

The two-state solution is dead. Long live the one-state solution.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How Barack Obama fooled the Jews and betrayed them once he had their money

Security Council Resolution 2334: The Legal Significance

John Kerry is Dead Wrong about Israeli Settlements by Gregg Roman The Los Angeles Times

Obama and Kerry Seek to Make Israel Indefensible

Kerry Takes a Parting Shot at Israel in Middle East Speech

RELATED VIDEO: Tom Trento, Director of The United West hosts Dr. Andy Bostom and Ken Abramowitz in studio to deconstruct the devastating decision by the Obama Administration to abstain from voting on the UN National Security Council, regarding the issue of “settlements” in Israel.

Geert Wilders’ message to Israel — ‘Ignore UN, continue building’

/in , , , , /by

Leave it to good friend of Israel, Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party to send an important message to embattled Israel following the betrayal by President Obama and the UN Security adverse vote approving resolution 2334.  Israel National News republished  this statement on his Facebook page today offering an important advice:

“Ignore the UN and continue building”

Leading Dutch politician Geert Wilders has criticized US president Barack Obama for not vetoing the Security Council resolution against Israel on Friday and advised Israel to ignore the UN resolution.

Wilders, the founder and leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, who has dominated Dutch polls during the year of 2016, wrote on his Facebook page:”Obama betrayed Israel. Thank God for Trump. My advice to my Israeli friends: ignore the UN and keep building more and more settlements.”

Wilders was voted politician of the year 2016 when 40,000 people participated in the annual public election held by Dutch TV-show ‘EenVandaag’. He is known for his sharp criticism of Islam and his outspoken support for Israel.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Netanyahu: Israel Doesn’t Accept U.N. Resolution

December 23, 2016: Another date that will live in infamy

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

The Malice of the Leader of the Democratic Party

/in , , , , , /by

President Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party. It is expected that after he leaves office on January 20th, 2017 he will continue to be the de-facto leader of the Democratic Party.

His legacy is the legacy of the Democratic Party.

In my column “How Democrats Fundamentally Changed from the Party of JFK to the Party of BHO” I asked, “Where are the Blue Dog Democrats? Purged from the BHO Party? As Ronald Reagan once said he did not leave the Democratic Party, rather the Democratic Party left him. So it is with many Democrats. The BHO Party has left them in the lurch.”

The Democratic Party has become the party of protests, anarchists and tribalism. They cling to illusions of racism, bigotry and embrace an anti-American world view. 

We have been writing about how President Obama has warmly embraced Islam as a person, as President and as the leader of the Democratic Party. Since his election in 2008 there has been malice, with forethought, against America in general and Israel in particular.

In a May 2015 column Dissected: President Obama’s Anti-Israelism Jerry Gordon wrote:

Both Vic Rosenthal’s Abu Yehuda  blog post, “For Obama it’s a Moral Crusade” and Brett Stephens’ Tuesday Wall Street Journal column,“The Rational Ayatollah Hypothesis” suggest that the President’s comments sinuously convey anti-Israelism.

Rosenthal gives the following evidence:

Some of the reasons I and others find Obama anti-Israel are these:

  1. His stubborn attempts to force Israel into a suicidal agreement with the Palestinians.
  2. His acceptance (regardless of his words) of a nuclear-armed Iran, and his efforts to stop Israel from acting against it.
  3. His open contempt for our Prime Minister.
  4. His taking the Turkish president’s side in the Mavi Marmara affair, and forcing PM Netanyahu to apologize to the Turks.
  5. His acceptance of Hamas claims that the IDF acted ‘disproportionally’ in Gaza (as shown by his demand for an immediate cease-fire and imposition of an arms embargo during the recent war).
  6. The aforementioned leaks about Israeli actions in Syria and elsewhere.
  7. His acceptance of the anti-Israel narrative that Israel’s right to exist rests on the Holocaust and that it must be balanced against the rights of the ‘deserving’ Palestinians (as expressed in his 2009 Cairo speech).
  8. His attempts to interfere in Israeli politics, including trying to defeat Netanyahu at the polls. It’s ironic that American money was used to help get out the presumably anti-Netanyahu Arab vote — and then Obama bitterly criticized Netanyahu for telling his supporters that they should get out and vote because the Arabs were!
  9. The double standard he displays: compare his condemnation of the PM for his election-day remark with his lack of response to the daily barrage of Israel-hatred and veneration of terrorists coming from the official Palestinian media. Or look at his expressed concern for Palestinians suffering the indignities of checkpoints against his failure to mention the almost daily Jewish victims of Palestinian terrorism.

I could go on, but this should be enough to show that the belief that Obama is anti-Israel is substantive, not simply a political reflex as he suggests.

Obama and Democratic Party have now shown malice toward Israel.

This malice began when Obama was first elected to the Presidency. His remarks about embracing Israel, and its people, and having their backs was a fabrication, a political calculation to lure them into a spiraling chamber of death.

The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews under Adolf Hitler. President Obama has given the followers of Mohammed another signal that its alright to exterminate the state of Israel – the definition of malice. Obama with one abstention has made possible the unthinkable.

Lutheran Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, an opponent of Adolf Hitler, wrote, “Not to act is to act, not to speak is to speak.” Obama chose not to act, not to speak, at the United Nations on December 23rd, 2016.

That is his and the Democratic Party’s legacy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

John Bolton: ‘The Two-State Solution Is Dead’

With New Resolution, the UN Drives Stake into Israeli-Palestinian Peace Hopes

Our World: Obama’s war against America

Israel will share ‘evidence’ of Obama-UN collusion with Trump, ambassador says

Netanyahu rips U.S.: ‘Friends don’t take friends to the Security Council’

Israel summons US ambassador over UN vote

Obama’s War on Israel: Netanyahu’s Remarks on UN Resolution at Lighting of the First Chanukah Candle

Security Council Resolution 2334 and a Strategy for Israel

Obama’s malice, May’s shame. Drain the UN swamp by Melanie Phillips

Obama’s self-defeating settlements policy

U.S. May Back Additional UN Security Council Moves Tied to Paris Peace Conference

Obama Sets Stage for Jerusalem’s Destruction and Biblical Judgment on U.S.

/in , , , /by

President Obama let an anti-settlement resolution pass the UN Security Council, breaking his word to Israel and abandoning our best ally in the Middle East to those who hate Israel–maybe setting the stage for a Biblical prophecy written in Zechariah 14.

“The day of the Lord comes…all nations [United Nations?] will gather against Jerusalem to battle. The city shall be taken and the houses rifled and the women ravished…Then shall the Lord go forth to fight against those nations.”

“The day of the Lord” has already been signaled by several ‘when-then’ signs in 2015,” says Dr. Richard Ruhling, author on Bible prophecy. He cites the Iran Nuclear Treaty, also promoted by Obama as a “peace and safety” sign in 1 Thessalonians, chapter 5. The rare solar eclipse on the equinox and blood moon also signals “the day of the Lord” in the last verses of Joel 2.

But how will God “fight against those [Muslim] nations as stated above? In the Bible, God says, “There is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning.” Isaiah 46:9,10. In the book of beginnings, the 22nd chapter of Genesis, God tested Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Muslims say the son was Ishmael and they celebrate the ram sacrifice, calling it Al-Adha. Which is the true holy book?

The Bible offers further detail with a militant ram sacrificed in Daniel 8. We know Alexander the Great conquered the Medes and Persians (named in verse 20) at the Battle of Arbela in 331 BC. But Gabriel told Daniel that his vision was “at the time of the end.” Verse 17.

Iraq and Iran are where the Medes and Persians were. The end-time application is half fulfilled as Saddam is dead. Iraq and Iran are enemies of Israel, but Israel was also the son of Isaac. The sparing of Israel is the sparing of Isaac when militant Islam is sacrificed. What’s coming will show the Bible as the true holy book.

Moderate Muslims are closer to biblical religion than much of the US with its alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, crime, violence, Hollywood, TV, perversions and rock music that their leaders hate and call it Christianity.

One problem is Israel’s large secular component that has little interest in its spiritual heritage in spite of godly leaders like Netanyahu. The US is no better. 60 million abortions and a re-defining of marriage by the Supreme Court invites judgment on the US as well, says Ruhling who sees Passover as the time when judgment came to Jerusalem in 70 AD.

If Jerusalem suffers judgment at Passover in April, America should expect judgment a month later as clues like “the days of Noah” suggest. Destruction came with Passover timing, but in the 2nd spring month.

Then Muslims or Palestinians in Jerusalem claiming victory over the Jews, should beware. “The Lord shall roar…from Jerusalem and the heavens and earth shall shake.” Joel 3. They will get the message, but so will the US as the earthquake initiates ‘the day of the Lord’ in Joel’s 2nd chapter, 10th verse.

How history repeats may be reminiscent of God executing judgment on Egypt and taking Israel to a covenant, later saying, “I am married to you” in Jeremiah 3. Paul included that history of the Exodus when he said, “All these things happened to them for tupos—types… ends of the world.” 1 Corinthians 10.

EDITORS NOTE: For more information, readers can visit Ruhling’s website at http://MayJudgmentDay.com or get a copy of his eBook, The Alpha & Omega Bible Code.

Democrats Abandoned Isreal on December 23, 2016: A date that will live in Infamy

/in , , , , /by

The leader of the Democratic Party has decided to abandon Israel on December 23rd, 2016 and Democrats knew full well that he would. To understand why this happened one must read President Obama’s 2012 speech to the United Nations.

Barack Obama said in a speech before the United Nations on September 25th, 2012 that, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

Democrats stood by the President, knowing that he was speaking directly to the Arab world, Israel, and those in the United States and beyond, who did not fully embrace the “religion of peace.”

Democrats knew their President stood squarely on the side of Islam and Islamists and they did nothing.

President Obama commented on Benghazi stating:

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.  Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well — for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith.  We are home to Muslims who worship across our country.  We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.  We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video.  And the answer is enshrined in our laws:  Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

This about Tunisia, now a hot bed of terrorism and the home of the Berlin Christmas market slaughter:

It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring.  And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that’s taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change.

We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator, because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspiration of men and women who took to the streets.

This about the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt:

We insisted on change in Egypt, because our support for democracy ultimately put us on the side of the people.

This about Yemen:

We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen, because the interests of the people were no longer being served by a corrupt status quo.

This about Libya:

We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents, and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.

And this about Syria:

And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop and a new dawn can begin.

Each of these statements were honey to the ears of Democrats and the Arab world and the Muslim community.  But for those who understood his real message, knew it was a death knell for the Israelis, Syrians, Libyans, Egyptians, Yemenis, Europeans and Americans.

Obama was saying that the future belongs to Islam. History will call December 23rd, 2016 a date that will live in infamy but the foundation of the betrayal of the Christian world was laid on September 25th, 2012.

And Democrats were silent.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s malice, May’s shame. Drain the UN swamp by Melanie Phillips

President Obama’s act of folly and betrayal of Israel

/in , , , , /by

President Obama yours was the unkindest abstention in the history of the U.S. actions as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Yesterday, in a deliberate act of retribution and in consort with four council members, two imperialist Islamic member states of the Organization of Islamic States, Malaysia and Senegal, New Zealand  and Venezuela, an ally of Iran, you abandoned the Jewish nation of Israel; this country’s only democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel.

This act of infamy was given a standing ovation by all 14 members of the Security Council. The Palestinian representative declared it a “day of victory.”

Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon demurred, calling it a “victory for terrorism.”

History will mark your action as an ignominious faithless act of betrayal of your oath of office and long-standing friendship of America towards the Jewish nation of Israel. A nation that shares the foundational values of our country.

Your abstention and the vote of UN Security Council approving Resolution 2334 dismembers Israel’s eternal capital of Jerusalem violating its existing right to negotiate just and secure borders.

Your act and that of the Security Council will not bring peace. Instead it will inflame Islamic terrorism against our ally Israel.

You have brought shame and dishonor on your office and reputation of this country and its people you were elected to faithfully serve.Your legacy following the end of your final term in office is forever tarnished by this act of folly.

The irony of your misguided conduct comes on the eve of the Jewish Festival of Hanukkah, meaning ‘consecration’, celebrating the victory two millenia ago by the Maccabees, the few against the many, blessed by Ha Shem. These warrior priests rose up with the cry of the High Priest Mattisyahu, “whoever is for for God, follow me.” Their mortal combat achieved a victory over the foreign tyrannyof Syrian-Greek despot, Antiochus, occupying ancient Judea. It was a victory in furtherance of the inalienable right of freedom to worship emblazoned in the First Amendment of our Constitution. An ancient victory that also affirmed the State of Israel’s right to the land of its Jewish fore-bearers and descendants.

Your action Friday , December 23, 2016 suborned that ancient legacy that this country was founded on to uphold 234 years ago with fight for Independence from another occupying tyranny.

It will now be left to a new Congress and your successor as President to redress your betrayal of our country and ally Israel.

Full text of UNSC resolution, approved Dec. 23, demanding Israel stop all settlement activity

The Times of Israel

Approved by 14-0, with US abstaining, text seeks action ‘to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-state solution’

Text of Egyptian-drafted resolution 2334 on settlements, approved by the UN Security Council, on December 23, 2016.

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,

Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,

Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Israel's UN ambassador Danny Danon addresses the Security Council on October 19, 2016. (UN Photo)

Israel’s UN ambassador Danny Danon addresses the Security Council on October 19, 2016. (UN Photo)

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,

1. Reaffirms 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 and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;

5. Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;

6. Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;

7. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace;

8. Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;

9. Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;

10. Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;

11. Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution;

13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s malice, May’s shame. Drain the UN swamp by Melanie Phillips

‘The Crescent Must be Above the Cross’: Muslim Persecution of Christians 2016

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Trump Influenced Egypt to Delay a U.N. Resolution that would have irreparably harmed Israel

/in , , , /by

A vote was scheduled by the U.N.for this past Thursday concerning Israeli settlements which would have irreparably harmed Israel. In the past the U.S. would have vetoed such a resolution. However it is now reported Obama wasn’t going to veto it.

Fortunately for Israel Donald Trump in an unusual move for a President Elect publicly called for Obama to veto the resolution sending Egypt a clear message of Trump’s position. As a result Egypt has postponed a vote on the resolution. This will give President Trump the opportunity to veto it when it is rescheduled.

From all of us who support Israel, thank-you President Elect Trump.

Trump influenced Egypt’s decision to postpone anti-Israel UN vote, diplomats say

Egypt postponed a vote on an anti-Israel UN resolution it had sponsored shortly after US President-elect Donald Trump called for a veto of the measure, which would have condemned Israeli building in Judea and Samaria.

US President-elect Donald J. Trump has implicitly called for outgoing US President Barack Obama to veto a UN Security Council resolution scheduled for Thursday afternoon, which would have condemned Israeli construction in all areas gained by the Jewish state during the Six-Day War in 1967, when it was threatened with extinction by the surrounding Arab countries.

“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed,” Trump wrote on his Facebook page. “This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.”

“As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations,” Trump added.

Read more…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Israel and the rising new West by Caroline B. Glick

Security Council likely to vote on settlements Friday despite Egyptian reversal

Join the Heritage Study Program’s Israel Expedition from May 20 – 30, 2017

/in , , , , /by

You are invited on Tom Trento’s Nation Security Mission to Israel, May 20-30, 2017. Along with Tom is Dan Gordon, Hollywood Screenwriter and current Israel Defense Force Reserve officer. No one knows Israel’s Military like Dan Gordon who has served there for over forty years.

After our incredible experience on the 2013, 2014 and 2015 trips, it is our pleasure to invite you to join us on the Fourth Fact Finding Expedition to Israel on May 20 – 30, 2017.

In conjunction with The United West and the Heritage Study Programs, we will be heading our third mission that will focus on and will offer most unique insights into the region’s current events. We heartily invite and welcome you to what will be a most informative and exciting expedition.

This trip incorporates visits to the Holy Land biblical and historic sites with a fact finding expedition that focuses on the region’s defense, security and intelligence. Area’s of special interest include the possible move of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and the Israeli border security system, as a possible model for the southern border of the United States.

FOR DETAILS GO HERE: http://tt.heritagestudyprograms.com/

PODCAST: U.S. – Russia – Syria – Iran – Turkey – Israel a ‘Tectonic Policy Shift’

/in , , , /by

Listen to this compelling, yet disturbing Lisa Benson Show with guests Shoshana Bryen of The Jewish Policy Center and best selling author and investigative journalist Ken Timmerman.

The round table discussion reveals the duplicity of Turkey, with Russia and U.S. complicity in Syria throwing the Kurds under the bus gutting the war against the Islamic State (ISIS).

The discussion revealed how the Obama Administration is:

  • abandoning the Persian Gulf to Iran,
  • destabilizing the world’s energy supply,
  • getting ready to withdraw U.S. Naval assets from the region
  • and avoiding Congressional appropriation authorities by paying Tehran with $1.3 billion from a State Department “slush fund” possibly via the Swiss Central Bank.

Listen to the broadcast and share it widely as this is not being covered by mainstream media in the run up to the Presidential campaign foreign policy debate.