If so, this is a big story which is developing and definitely worth watching closely:
According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House is considering drastic measures to reboot the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Among those measures is a UN Security Council resolution that would set the parameters for a two state solution and that would recognize East Jerusalem as the official capital of a Palestinian state. If Barack Obama makes this move, it will almost certainly be before the election in November. I had previously reported that France was ready to introduce a similar UN Security Council resolution back in September, but at that time the French backed off because they did not have full support from the Obama administration. But now that Obama is approaching the end of his term, he suddenly seems more willing to make a bold move.
Remember, this is not just some Internet rumor. This comes directly from an article that was just published in the Wall Street Journal that claims to have top White House officials as the source of this information. According to those anonymous officials, the Obama administration is now ready to potentially move forward with the kind of UN Security Council resolution that I mentioned above…
The strongest element on the list of options under consideration would be U.S. support for a Security Council resolution calling on both sides to compromise on key issues, something Israel had opposed and Washington has repeatedly vetoed in the past.
The article goes on to say that the parameters of an agreement for a two state solution would be based on the 1949 armistice line but would allow for land swaps so that many Jewish settlements that have been built since 1967 would not be swallowed up by the new Palestinian state.
The Palestinians would be required to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and East Jerusalem would receive full UN Security Council recognition as the capital of a new Palestinian state. This is something that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised that he would never agree to.
But Barack Obama appears to be completely fed up with Netanyahu at this point, and that is why the White House is now strongly considering moving forward with a UN Security Council resolution. Needless to say, this would represent a dramatic change in policy from previous administrations. Here is more from the Wall Street Journal…
Mounting a push for a Security Council resolution would be a significant shift in U.S. policy and one the Israeli government has feared could marshal international sentiment in a way that could make it harder to resist making concessions. Such a move could further strain already tense relations between Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu, who have clashed over U.S. diplomacy with Iran and the administration’s past attempts to forge a Middle East peace agreement.
Last year, the White House threatened to allow action at the U.N. to proceed without objection from the U.S. after Mr. Netanyahu said during his re-election campaign that he wouldn’t support a two-state solution. The Israeli leader subsequently walked back his statement, and the White House didn’t follow through with its threat.
Right now, 136 nations already formally recognize a Palestinian state. But a Palestinian state has never had full UN Security Council recognition because the United States has always blocked efforts in that direction.
Many people don’t realize this, but if Obama throws his support behind such a resolution, it would be considered binding upon both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The following comes from Israel National News…
A Security Council resolution would be binding upon all parties, unlike General Assembly measures which are non-obligatory recommendations. Such a resolution would remain in force even after the president leaves office next January, effectively shaping the future of American policy in the region for Mr. Obama’s successors.
The resolution would require Israel cease construction over the Green Line and would force Israel to recognize eastern Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
Needless to say, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be absolutely furious if the Obama administration pushes forward with a UN Security Council resolution that would attempt to dictate a solution to the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Perhaps this explains why Netanyahu just cancelled a meeting with Barack Obama at the White House later this month…
Of course there are lots of reasons why Netanyahu would potentially be upset with Obama. In addition to the ridiculously bad Iran deal, we should also remember that Obama tried to help defeat Netanyahu during the last Israeli election, and the Wall Street Journal has reported that the Obama administration has been actively spying on Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders.
Barack Obama has stabbed Israel in the back over and over again, and so it would be absolutely no surprise if he decided to push for a UN Security Council resolution that would permanently divide the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.
Unfortunately, such a move would have very serious implications for all of us. By dividing the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, Obama would be cursing our nation, and that is not something that any of us should want.
If Obama is going to do this, it will almost certainly happen before the election in November.
That means that we are looking at roughly an eight month time period.
Personally, because of how the UN schedule works, I would say that the most likely time for such a resolution to be introduced would be in September or October. But it is definitely possible that it could come sooner than that.
For a long time, Barack Obama has expressed a desire to see the establishment of a Palestinian state before he leaves office. Netanyahu has always been his nemesis in this regard, but now Obama seems determined to try to make something happen at the United Nations while he still has the power to do so.
Let us pray that he is not successful.
The U.S. says it has dispatched three B-2 stealth bombers on a training mission to the Asia-Pacific region amid growing tensions with North Korea.
The deployment was announced Wednesday by U.S. Strategic Command, which is responsible for U.S. nuclear forces. B-2 bombers are capable of launching nuclear as well as conventional weapons. They are based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.
Strategic Command said the bombers will conduct training with the Australian military during the deployment, which amounts to a show of force at a time of mounting tensions with North Korea. North Korea threatened pre-emptive nuclear strikes after the United States and South Korea began large-scale war games this month.
Strategic Command declined to say where the bombers will be operating from, or for how long.
In my book, Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education, I discuss my experience being educated by the far left in a social work program in Broken Arrow Oklahoma. Everything revolved around the concept of social justice and the idea that the United States owes the world a “climate debt” because we have raped the planet of its resources in order to fuel our capitalist, industrial economy. In fact, at the end of the last semester, we watched a video teaching students that the only way to fight climate change was to give the United Nations global governing power in order to redistribute land and other resources. This plan is known as U.N. Agenda 21, or sustainable development, and it’s a plan that is slowly stripping mankind of all natural rights.
Agenda 21 was originally signed by President George W. Bush in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit. President Clinton, in 1993, signed executive order 12852 which enacted the President’s Council on sustainable development, forever entrenching us in the Agenda 21 plan. This executive order directed agencies of the federal government to work in compliance with U.N. directives while also coordinating with state and local governments to implement the plan at all levels. Today, sustainable development is a stated goal of nearly every community in America.
The United Nations is an organization based on communist ideals. In fact, the U.N. Charter is nearly identical to the constitution of the old Soviet Union. Communists do not believe in human rights in the same sense that Americans do. In America, the right to private property is a fundamental liberty that contributes to the overall growth and well-being of society. When an individual builds wealth it gives him the opportunity to expand that wealth while allowing others to benefit from its creation. Communists believe that land ownership is a social injustice and that the wealth created by such ownership is oppressive, leading to increased poverty and suffering. This is the basic premise of Agenda 21. Consider this excerpt from the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements-
The Soviet Union is one nation remembered for its efforts to control the land in the interest of the greater good. Joseph Stalin believed that if he could confiscate the land from the peasants and force farmers to work in “collectives,” he could increase production and lead his country into prosperity. Not only were farmers forced to give up their land, Stalin also had ordered the more wealthy ones, known as Kulaks, to be eliminated as a class; they were either killed or sent to prison camps for reeducation. These people were targeted in much the same way President Obama targets wealth creators in our society. The end result was tens of millions of hard working grain producers being rounded up in box cars and either exterminated or worked to death. With the nation’s most successful producers gone, grain production slowed significantly, resulting in famine. Farmers began to resist collectivization by burning their own crops and livestock, thus being labeled dissenters and traitors to the revolution. Stalin also had these people murdered. In the end, Joseph Stalin’s collectivization led to the death of over twenty-five million people.
The United States is now witnessing an oppressive federal bureaucracy known as the Bureau of Land Management force ranchers off of their land in the west, one of which they murdered. President Obama is pushing the ideals of the U.N. Agenda 21 plan by forcing sustainable development laws down the nation’s throat. Many of these laws quietly went into effect at the beginning of the year wrapped up in a program known as The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Furthermore, the U.N. Climate chief, Christina Figueres, openly declares that a communist model of government is best suited to meet sustainable development goals and that the world must make every effort to reduce the world’s population to combat climate change. Is the United States about to repeat history by forcing its own citizens off of their land and eliminating those that resist? That seems to be the general tone of this administration.