Friday, December 30, 2016

Inconvenient Facts: No Evidence Russia Hacked DNC, The Mouse That Roared, Israel Will Survive Shameful Jealousy




Obama ignores evidence Russia didn’t hack DNC, Podesta



President Obama’s punishment of Russia for allegedly hacking the emails of Democratic Party operatives to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election ignores at least two important facts.

For one, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose hacktivist organization released the thousands of emails that shed damaging light on Hillary Clinton and her allies, denied the Russians were the source.


In addition, the Obama administration has developed a reputation for manipulating intelligence for political purposes.

The administration announced Thursday that through an executive order, Obama sanctioned two of Russia’s intelligence services, the GRU and FSB, and declared 35 Russian intelligence operatives “persona non grata” in the U.S. Also, the U.S. is shutting down Russian compounds in Maryland and New York.


Earlier this month, in a speech to donors in New York City, Hillary Clinton blamed her defeat on Russian President Vladimir Putin, claiming “a personal beef” with her prompted him to meddle in the U.S. presidential election.

Clinton claimed that Russia had hacked both the Democratic National Committee and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, and released the emails to WikiLeaks in a plot to boost Trump.

But Clinton did not specify Putin’s “personal beef,” nor did she offer any proof Assange and WikiLeaks had obtained the hacked emails from Russia.

Assange, however, in a July 25 interview with NBC News, said there was “no proof whatsoever” that WikiLeaks obtained nearly 20,000 hacked Democratic National Committee emails from Russian intelligence.

Assange said DNC servers have been riddled with security holes for years and that many sets of documents from multiple sources are now in public hands.

In December, Assange made clear to Sean Hannity in a radio interview that Russia did not provide WikiLeaks the Podesta emails or the DNC emails.

Assange insisted the source of the email leaks “was not a state party.”
“We’re unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn’t a state party. Normally, we say nothing at all,” Assange told Hannity.

“We have no conflict of interests. We have an excellent reputation, a strong interest in protecting our sources, and so we never say anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out. Sometimes we do it, but we don’t like to do it. We have another interest here that is maximizing the impact of our publications,” he said.
“So in order to protect a distraction attack against our publications, we’ve had to come out and say, ‘No, it’s not a state party. Stop trying to distract in that way and pay attention to the content of the publication,’” said Assange.

While Assange refused to comment on Hannity’s suggestion the emails came from a disgruntled source within the DNC, possibly even within Podesta’s office, the WikiLeaks chief did not deny it.
In contrast, he had vociferously denied the source was Russia.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a member of the House intelligence community, has charged CIA Director John Brennan was orchestrating a “hit job” against President-elect Donald Trump by going around the intelligence community and leaking information to the press suggesting Russia was behind the hack of Podesta.
“And that’s what infuriates me about this is that we have John Brennan, supposedly John Brennan, leaking to the Washington Post, to a biased newspaper like the New York Times, findings and conclusions that he’s not telling the intelligence community,” King said during a Dec. 18 appearance on ABC’s “This Week.”






The objective of the recent Obama-concocted Security Council resolution against the State of Israel is nothing less than a betrayal of the U.S.-Israel alliance and a message to Trump.  The Security Council's resolution, which brands the Jewish presence in any part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) or in parts of Jerusalem as illegal, will also make the 800,000 Jews in these areas international outlaws.

This betrayal of Israel is actually Obama's lame-duck way of signaling to the new Trump administration that he has no intention of letting President-Elect Trump, the democratically elected president, revoke the so-called "transformation" Obama has set for America over the past eight years.


Obama's action in the U.N. comes from his longtime distaste for Israel and from his newly found distaste for Trump and everything Trump stands for.  Obama has a lot of "unfinished business" and primal anger concerning Trump's victory, exposing the Democratic Party and its leader for what they are: hated by Middle America and totally detached from the traditional values of so many Americans

Obama's legacy has been even worse: allowing the Islamic terror genie out of the bottle; half a million dead in Syria; the Muslim refugee invasion of Europe, which could lead to the breakup of the EU; the rise of Iran as a conventional power that is devouring one Sunni country after another; the diminution of American power and prestige; enabling Russia to invade and conquer neighboring countries; and finally, legitimizing the BDS movement and the criminalization of Israel by encouraging the Security Council of the U.N. to make Israel a pariah state.

In the coming three weeks of what remains of the Obama presidency, President-Elect Trump and the State of Israel should prepare for the worst and expect Obama to take revenge against American voters who chose Trump and against Israel for standing up to Obama for the past eight years – exposing his nothingness, his empty beliefs, and his empty panaceas that have failed one by one.  Obama will continue with his political carnage until his last day in office in a manner unbefitting the office of the president.








As violins play his swan song, there are, at least figuratively speaking,  big splotches of green growing all over President Barack Hussein Obama.  It’s not the green of the global warming scam he tries so hard to smear all over humanity,  but the corrosive, soul-killing green of jealousy, the unbridled jealousy he carries in his heart for Israel and its courageous President Benjamin Netanyahu.

In the end, Obama’s bluster and braggadocio comes down to one human emotion, jealousy of nations and leaders more noble than himself.

With only weeks of his 8-year tenure left to do damage, Obama used UN leverage to Brutus-stab the people of Israel in the heart.
But time doesn’t stand still for any earthly mortal.  Even blowhards don’t last forever, and it’s back to the garbage heap of street activism for Obama at noon hour, Jan. 20.

His 11th-hour lash out against Israel originates from an unhinged jealousy that’s eating Obama alive, and no one described it better than Joan Swirsky in yesterday’s column:
“… Finally, what I learned is that the strongest human emotion is not hatred, not anger, and not vengeance, but jealousy! When you peel back the layers of emotion––whether it’s in the commission of a crime like theft or even murder or hatred of Jews and Israel––jealousy is almost always the animating force.

“Mr. Obama and his minions see the pathetic lack of creativity, of innovation, of an elevated standard-of-living, and of progress in the community of Arabs as maddening.
“First, they were humiliated when at the founding of Israel in 1948 , powerful Arab armies attacked the fledgling state and were annihilated by the bedraggled survivors of the Holocaust,
“When Mr. Obama & Co. contrast this embarrassing history with the jaw-dropping evolution of the Jewish state––its trailblazing technology and medical innovations, its symphonies, sports teams, booming economy and military might––it’s infuriating to them. They get angry, crazed with anger, murderous with anger.
“But under the fury is jealousy. They can’t help it. What you see is the anger because anger feels good and jealousy feels bad. It’s that simple.
































Posted by at 3 comments:

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Obama Sanctions Russia Over Unproven Hacking Claims, Putin Will Determine Adequate Response To U.S. Sanctions



Obama Sanctions Russia over Unproven Hacking Claims



President Obama issued an executive order on Thursday sanctioning Russian intelligence officials, individuals, and organizations based on as-yet unproven accusations that Russia interfered in the 2016 election by hacking the emails of Democratic Party officials.


This action comes as the Obama administration is heightening tensions between the United States and Russia on several fronts.
The new executive order signed by Obama offers no new proof that the Russian government was involved in what it calls “tampering with, altering, or causing a misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions.”
In place of proof of these serious claims, the Obama White House said it will “be providing a report to Congress in the coming days about Russia’s efforts to interfere in our election, as well as malicious cyber activity related to our election cycle in previous elections.”
After former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suffered a stunning loss in November’s election, many high-profile Democrats accused Russian “hacking” of interfering with the election. President Obama has explicitly stated there is no evidence of “vote tampering.”That leaves one possible avenue by which Russian “hackers” could have influenced the vote: the Wikileaks release of email archives from several Democratic National Committee (DNC) employees and Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta.


The House Intelligence committee has still not been briefed on the specific proof, if any, that links Russian espionage agencies to the hacking of Democrat’s official’s emails, inside sources with knowledge of the matter told Breitbart News last week. The committee was told they had to wait for the report to Congress to be issued to get the briefing, the source said.

Reuters reported on December 16th that Representative Ron Johnson said, “It is disappointing that the CIA would provide information on this issue to the Washington Post and NBC but will not provide information to elected members of Congress” after Johnson was denied a briefing by the CIA.








Ruthless US sanctions have banned the use of a highly-private and strategically placed Russian “spy compound,” a vacation retreat center in Maryland where families grilled burgers, hot dogs, and maybe even nuclear-Russian shish kebobs.

On Thursday unmarked SUVs surrounded a Maryland property belonging to the Russian Embassy to the United States to send a clear signal: Russians are not welcome any more.The Obama administration designated the vacation retreat as a compound used for ‘spying purposes’ without expanding on what kind of spying was going on in the remote location. 

Unsurprisingly, it is extremely difficult to justify intelligence gathering here, as no military base or government building can be found anywhere nearby and everyone in the neighborhood has known for decades that the spot is a retreat for Russian diplomats and their families. If you had been a spy, coming here would be the best way to blow your cover. Nevertheless, this quaint family vacation spot is what the US has targeted in their latest round of sanctions.


Google maps gives a detailed look at this 'spy nest,' revealing several wooden summer houses and a 1920s Georgian-style abode to be the home of some of Russia’s most lethal weapons, including lush magnolia, cypress, and boxwood trees. With great views and perfectly-charbroiled steaks on the way, maybe the Obamas want to spend some vacation time there themselves.


The Washington Life magazine previously ran a feature on the covert operations center, revealing that the "dacha" (that’s Russian for summer house), is a cherished getaway. "It’s a Russian tradition," Yuri Ushakov, the Russian Ambassador at the time, told the magazine. "You will find Moscow empty on Saturdays and Sundays, even in winter. A dacha is a good place to spend time outdoors with family and friends."


​​However, the Obama administration felt that enough is enough, and it was time to put an end to these egregious activities. Russian diplomats, after all, should not have too much fun while in the US, as, otherwise, they might like it here and become too friendly with Americans, something that the outgoing administration has worked hard to prevent at all costs — even if it seriously complicates the lives of US diplomats in Russia. After all, there’s no doubt that Moscow will take similar measures toward Americans, as the diplomatic tradition requires. But who cares, if you can have another great headline, and show how tough you are on the Russians. And their barbeque. 









Kremlin announced that Putin will determine adequate response to US sanctions.

Russia will undoubtedly provide an adequate response to new US sanctions and it will make Washington officials 'feel uncomfortable', Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Thursday.

"We will certainly response adequately…and it will be determined in line with decisions adopted by Russian President [Vladimir Putin], Peskov told reporters commenting on the US move, which he described as "unpredictable and aggressive."

"There is no doubt that this adequate and mirror response will make the US side feel very uncomfortable as well," Peskov stressed.

The Kremlin spokesman added that Moscow regrets the US move to impose new anti-Russian sanction as it continues to destroy bilateral relations.
He noted that the sanctions were unpredictable and seemed aggressive, adding that Russia still hopes to build normal relation with the US government.
The Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that the ministry would make an official statement on Friday regarding the new sanctions.

"Tomorrow there will be official statements, countermeasures," Zakharova wrote on Facebook, adding that the move has complicated matters for the new US administration.








"In the interest of our country and its great people," Trump promised to meet with members of the FBI, DHS, and other intelligence agencies "to be updated on the facts of this situation," according to a statement from the transition team.


The US slapped sanctions on Russia Thursday as part of retaliation for accusations that Russian intelligence services interfered with US elections. 35 Russian diplomats and their families were ordered to exit the country within 72 hours. 
The US must "move on to bigger and better things," Trump's team said, but in order to uphold the American people's interests he will consult with the intelligence community about their recent findings.



Posted by at No comments:

Just The Facts Please: Who Owns The Land? Pushing Beyond The Rhetoric Into The Land Of Reality



The following two articles summarize the facts of the situation quite accurately - "inconvenient facts" for those who hate Israel: 





This morning I got an email from an American correspondent asking what are the arguments for the legitimacy of Israeli communities (not ‘settlements’) across the Green Line, including all of Jerusalem. When I responded, I realized that although I have written about this before, it needs to be repeated – and repeated, because in this case the truth is a minority opinion. So here is a slightly more complete version of my answer:

The Jewish people have a legal, historical and moral right to live anywhere in the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean; and the only sovereign power in this region is Israel, the state of the Jewish people. Here is why:

From a legal point of view, the land was originally a part of the Ottoman Empire, which ceased to exist at the end of WWI. “Palestine” was set aside for the Jewish people by the Palestine Mandate, which was supposed to be administered for their benefit by Britain, which then tried to subvert it for its own interests. It’s clear that while the intent of the Mandate was that all residents would have civil rights, rights to a “national home” were reserved for the Jewish people, who were also explicitly granted the right of “close settlement on the land”. This was affirmed for all the land from the river to the sea by the representatives of the international community in 1923.
The partition resolution of November 1947 (UNGA 181) was non-binding – a recommendation for a permanent settlement after the end of the Mandate. But it was never implemented. 
In 1948, the Arabs rejected the UN’s partition resolution and invaded the territory of the former Mandate, blatantly violating  the UN Charter in an attempt to acquire the territory for themselves. The 1949 ceasefire agreement that ended hostilities was not a peace agreement, and both sides insisted that that the ceasefire lines were not political boundaries. Their only significance was to mark the locations of the armies when the shooting stopped.
The 19-year Jordanian annexation of the territory it controlled that followed was illegal, only recognized by Britain (and maybe Pakistan). This occupation did not change the status of the land in any way.
The state of Israel was declared in 1948 and recognized by numerous other states. But what were its borders? Certainly not the armistice lines and not the recommendations of the partition resolution. However, legal scholars Eugene Kontorovich and Avi Bell recently provided a clear answer:
Israel’s borders and territorial scope are a source of seemingly endless debate. Remarkably, despite the intensity of the debates, little attention has been paid to relevance of the doctrine of uti possidetis juris to resolving legal aspects of the border dispute. Uti possidetis juris is widely acknowledged as the doctrine of customary international law that is central to determining territorial sovereignty in the era of decolonization. The doctrine provides that emerging states presumptively inherit their pre-independence administrative boundaries.
Applied to the case of Israel, uti possidetis juris would dictate that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948. The doctrine would thus support Israeli claims to any or all of the currently hotly disputed areas of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem), the West Bank, and even potentially the Gaza Strip (though not the Golan Heights)
Israel’s practical acquisition of sovereignty over all the land in 1967 is thus entirely legitimate. And since Israel did not occupy land belonging to any other sovereign power, it is incorrect to refer to Judea and Samaria as “occupied territory.” Naftali Bennett’s statement that “you can’t occupy your own land” is precisely correct.
Article 49 of the 4th Geneva convention, the usual justification for saying that settlements are illegal only applies to occupied territory, which Judea and Samaria are not. 

But even if they were occupied territory, the intent of article 49 was to prevent forcible transfer of a population the way the Nazis sent German Jews to occupied Poland, not people moving of their own free will.
From a historical point of view, the Palestinians claim that they lived here for generations and European Jews came and displaced them. But in fact all but a few ‘Palestinians’ are descended from Arabs who migrated to the area for economic reasons after the advent of Zionism, and even fewer arrived before the invasion by Muhammad Ali in the 1830s. 
The Jewish connection to the land doesn’t need further explication. Judea and Samaria, in fact, represent the biblical heartland of the Jewish people, where its history took place and where its holy places are located. If there is any part of the land of Israel that should belong to the Jewish people, it is Judea (including Jerusalem) and Samaria.
From a moral point of view, the Palestinians have had criminal leaders that have relied on war and  terrorism to achieve their goals. Haj Amin al-Husseini started several pogroms in pre-state Palestine, and then collaborated with Hitler in his attempt to bring the Holocaust to the Middle East. 
Yasser Arafat and the PLO popularized airline (and other) hijacking to blackmail nations into supporting his goals, and was responsible for at least one major regional war (Lebanon 1982) and countless massacres and terror attacks against Israel and other nations. Hamas explicitly calls for genocide against Jews and is guilty of numerous war crimes. Palestinians have refused territorial compromises when offered and have started several wars against Israel (1947, second intifada, Hamas wars). Why should they be allowed to benefit from these actions?
Jerusalem. One interesting additional issue is the insistence of the US State Department that no part of Jerusalem, eastern or western, belongs to Israel. The 1947 partition resolution called for Jerusalem to be under international control. But as I noted, the resolution was only advisory and was never implemented. 
The Mandate did not give any special status to Jerusalem. The State Department’s insistence on this point is inconsistent, given that it appears to agree that Acco and Nazareth, which were to be parts of the Arab state proposed in 1947, are currently parts of Israel. It is also indefensible. And the deliberate vehemence with which the Obama Administration has pressed this view is irrational, insulting and clearly anti-Zionist.
I hope the information in this post will be helpful to my correspondent, and to others as well. I’ll add that nothing would make me happier than to hear the Government of Israel make an unambiguous declaration of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, as is our legal, historical and moral right.





Much is always being made of the “complexities” of the Israel-Palestine problem. It’s no such thing; it is very easy, very simple to understand. And as a service to my beloved readers, I am now going to lay it out for you, in a way that even the simplest libtard could grasp, were they willing to even try.

It all boils down to this quote from the Hadith:
Sahih Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”
And there it is. How do you negotiate, how do you compromise, how do you find common ground with that? With people whose most sincere wish—for whom the cornerstone of their very existence—is to see Israel destroyed and the Jews—all Jews, including those foolish and despicable American Jews immersed in Progressivist self-deception and wishful thinking—wiped from the face of the earth?

There are plenty more such quotes from the Koran, Hadith, and Sura (a hundred and nine of them, in fact, for which there is NO equivalent in the Christian bible, although the Torah does have some questionable passages that hew uncomfortably close to the Koran), not just endorsing, not just suggesting, but outright commanding violence on the part of the followers of the vile, deranged pedophile Mohammed. Such commands are what make Islam unique among all the world’s religions, particularly in the modern age. Thus:
The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.
And again: there it is.

Now, the Israelis have tried trading land for peace in the West Bank and Gaza; in each case, they lost the land, but did not gain peace.

Time and again—and even as staunch and solid an Israeli leader as Netanyahu has fallen victim to the delusion—Israel has been led to the bargaining table with deceptive, treacherous, and genocidal Paleosimian leaders. Time and again, they have made their bootless concessions. And time and again, the Palestinian swine have walked away, from Arafat to Abu Mazen, now known for some reason as Mahmoud Abbas. The inescapable historical fact:
UN Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, passed in November 1947, called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the land which at that point was controlled by the British-run Palestine Mandate. All the Arab countries opposed the resolution, voted against it, and promised to go to war to prevent its implementation. Representing the Palestinians, the Arab Higher Committee also opposed the plan and threatened war, while the Jewish Agency, representing the Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate, supported the plan.
The Arabs and the Palestinians were true to their word and did launch a war against the Jews of Palestine, violating both Resolution 181 and the UN Charter. Much to the surprise of the Arab side, the Jews were able to survive the initial onslaughts and eventually win the war.
The fundamental fact remains that had the Arabs and the Palestinians accepted the Partition Resolution and not violated the UN Charter by attacking Israel, there would be a 63-year-old Palestinian state today next to Israel, and there would not have been a single Palestinian refugee.
Just as today, it seems that even in 1948 the Arab side was more concerned with opposing and attacking the Jewish state than with creating a Palestinian state.
The Jews were living in Judea hundreds of years before Mohammad was even born and his filthy pseudo-religion established by conquest and murder. The so-called Palestinians have no legitimate, historical, or legal claim to so much as one inch of Israeli land. 

The Israelis would be perfectly happy to adopt the so-called “two-state solution,” and have tried in good faith and with no intent of deception to do just that. 

The Palestinians have rejected each and every such offer and resumed their barbaric atrocities. They wish to see Israel destroyed, and the Jews wiped from the face of the earth. There’s your Israeli-Palestinian problem summed up; there’s why, as long as the Palestinians cling to the abominable teachings of Mohammed, there will never be a real solution. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

As I said yesterday, there are those on the alt-Right who would see us abandon Israel and cozy up to the Muslim shitrapies. I will never be one of them.
Bottom line update! JJ Sefton sums up pretty well:
Since its founding in 1948, the modern State of Israel has been the lone beacon of freedom and enlightenment surrounded by a vast wasteland of medieval tyranny, pig-ignorance, squalor, barbarity and a blind, centuries-old unreconstructed hatred. In spite of this, it has year after year made concession after concession in a desperate attempt to stop generational bloodshed and save the lives of not only its own children but of children whose parents use them as suicide bombers. It has only earned them enmity. And the twin ideologies of Islam and Marxism are converging with the aim of wiping Israel off the map and annihilating every Jew that Hitler couldn’t gas now in sight; all thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States.
Having backed Israel into a corner by all but giving Iran nukes, and now opening a second front at the UN to annihilate the Jewish state politically, I suppose Bibi’s only response must be as unthinkable as Obama’s incitement: Annex the West Bank and to hell with the consequences.
Well, nah; all he really has to do is just wait till January 20th, when the Marxist, Jew-hating Left will finally get its comeuppance, Israel will once again have a friend in the White House and, as Trump said, “things will be different.”
Things WILL be different update! A most delicious quote: “Who is Obama?” (Israel’s Culture and Sports Minister Miri) Regev asked rhetorically. “Obama is history. We have Trump.” Yes, we do—all of us, Israelis and Americans alike—and not a moment too soon, either.
5 questions update! Here’s the first two:
1.  Why are the territories continually referred to as “Palestinian?” With cities such as Hebron, Shilo, Bethlehem, Jericho, and Jerusalem—and many others from the Bible—why is the land never referred to as “Jewish” or “Christian?” For example, one of the most well-known cities in the West Bank is known as “The Palestinian city of Nablus.” How many people know how that name came about? (Hint: the Roman Emperor Vespasian re-named it from Shechem to “Neapolis,” as in Naples).
2.  Why are Palestinians free to live throughout cities in Israel such as Tel Aviv, but Jews are told they cannot be free to live in cities such as Hebron or Jerusalem?
Good questions all. I’ll add one of my own: what kind of access do you think Christians, Jews, or any non-Muslims would be allowed to holy sites in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Jericho, and other places in Israel if the Palestinians were in charge of them? Hint: one need only look to Mecca for the answer.





Posted by at 2 comments:

Dissecting The 'Kerry Parameters', The Futility Of Israeli Concessions, Turkey Has 'Confirmed Evidence' That U.S. Supported ISIS



Why is Netanyahu so afraid of the 'Kerry Parameters'?


Many Israelis, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, dismissed US Secretary of State John Kerry’s lengthy speech Wednesday about his vision for Middle East peace as a flawed and failed effort to land a parting shot at Israel.

Critics pointed out that Kerry droned on disproportionally on Israeli settlements while minimizing Palestinians terrorism, incitement and glorification of violence. They wondered why he dedicated his last major speech to an elusive Israeli-Palestinian peace deal while the rest of the Middle East is in utter turmoil, with hundreds of thousands being butchered in Syria.

Critics further noted that Kerry held his speech less than a month before a new administration with a very different worldview is set to be sworn in, and that all his efforts to establish a framework for future negotiations are therefore utterly meaningless (although, in all fairness, Bill Clinton in 2000 also issued his parameters merely three weeks before he was replaced by a new president from the other side of the aisle).

It is true that Kerry’s six “principles” were not very innovative. In their initial reactions to the speech, both Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbasrefused to give an inch, clinging to their respective positions, unwilling to make any compromises to please Mr. Kerry.


The “Kerry Parameters,” as they might become known one day, do not attempt to prejudge or impose any outcome but are merely meant as a “possible basis for serious negotiations when the parties are ready,” he asserted.


Netanyahu took no comfort in Kerry’s pledge not to seek further UN action against Israel. 


These parameters, the prime minister fears, could be adopted by the upcoming international peace conference in Paris, set for January 15, and then France or Sweden might propose a resolution based on it to the Security Council.

It is therefore worthwhile to take a closer look at Kerry’s six principles and examine how they differ from the Clinton parameters — which 16 years ago both Israelis and Palestinians accepted, albeit with reservations — and what the two sides make of them today.


Principle one: Borders


Kerry calls for “secure and recognized international borders between Israel and a viable and contiguous Palestine, negotiated based on the 1967-lines with mutually agreed equivalent swaps.”
This has been the international community’s prefered formula for decades, though Kerry was less specific than Clinton about the size of the swaps (Clinton said 94-96% of the West Bank’s territory would become part of the Palestinian state).
Netanyahu, on the other hand, has never publicly agreed to negotiate on the basis of the 1967 lines.

Netanyahu has accepted, in principle, a two-state solution, but adamantly refuses to talk about where he would draw the border between Israel and a future Palestine. 



Principle two: Jewish state recognition


Citing the 1947 UN partition plan, Kerry endorsed Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinians recognize the principle of two states for two peoples — “one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens.”

Netanyahu on Wednesday lambasted Kerry for failing to realize that the “persistent Palestinian refusal to recognize a Jewish state remains the core of the conflict.” If the world truly wanted to promote peace, it should move to eradicate the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel as a Jewish state, he exclaimed, “and I can only express my regret and say that it’s a shame that Secretary Kerry does not see this simple truth.”

The Palestinians have so far adamantly refused to acquiesce to Netanyahu’s demand, and there are no indications that Kerry’s speech will change that.



Principle three: Refugees

Any solution to the refugee question “must be consistent with two states for two peoples and cannot affect the fundamental character of Israel,” he added. While he did not spell it out, the implication is that most refugees will not be allowed to return to Israel proper but will have to settle in the future state of Palestine or a third country. This is very similar to the Clinton parameters.
Israel could live with such an arrangement, and even though the Palestinians officially insist on what they call “the right of return,” Abbas is on the record as saying that he does not want to flood Israel with Palestinian refugees.



Principle four: Jerusalem


Perhaps surprisingly, Kerry opposed a division of Jerusalem, proposing instead to have the city be declared “the internationally recognized capital of the two states.”
“Most acknowledge that Jerusalem should not be divided again like it was [before] 1967, and we believe that,” he said. “At the same time, there is broad recognition that there will be no peace agreement without reconciling the basic aspirations of both sides to have capitals there.”
He provided less specifics than Clinton, who proposed that “Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli,” and promised Israeli control over the Western Wall and Palestinian control over the rest of the Temple Mount.
The status of Jerusalem has always been the trickiest of all the final-status issues, and Kerry’s speech did nothing to bring a resolution closer.



Principle five: Security


In calling for a future Palestinian state to be “non-militarized,” Kerry supported Netanyahu’s second key demand, after the Jewish state recognition. “Everyone understands that no Israeli government can ever accept an agreement that does not satisfy its security needs or that risk creating an enduring security threat like Gaza transferred to the West Bank,” Kerry said. “And Israel must be able to defend itself effectively, including against terrorism and other regional threats.”

The question of security has long been considered the most easy to resolve, though the last rounds of negotiations, under Kerry, revealed deep disagreements between Abbas and Netanyahu regarding what troops would be stationed where and for how long. The prime minister rejects any arrangement that would not include a permanent Israeli military presence in the West Bank, a position anathema to the Palestinians.




Principle six: End of all claims


Once all the aforementioned obstacles have been overcome, both sides will formally end the conflict and all outstanding claims, “enabling normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as envisaged by the Arab Peace Initiative,” Kerry said.
For Israel, this would mean full diplomatic relations with the entire Islamic world. For the larger Middle East, it could be “the greatest moment of potential transformation” since 1948, Kerry proclaimed.
Nobody argues with the assertion that a final peace deal would be a fantastic development for the parties and for the region, but, as Kerry himself admitted after laying out his vision, “we all know that a speech alone won’t produce peace.”




The Way to Peace: Israeli Victory, Palestinian Defeat: 'The Futility Of Israeli Concessions'



The Oslo exercise showed the futility of Israeli concessions to Palestinians when the latter fail to live up to their obligations. By signaling Israeli weakness, Oslo made a bad situation worse. What is conventionally called the "peace process" would more accurately be dubbed the "war process."


From Israel's perspective, seven years of Oslo appeasement, 1993-2000, undid 45 years of successful deterrence; then, six years of unilateral withdrawals, 2000-06, further buried deterrence. The decade since 2006 has witnessed no major changes.

When Palestinians still lived under direct Israeli control before Oslo, acceptance of Israel had increased over time even as political violence diminished. Residents of the West Bank and Gaza could travel locally without checkpoints and access work sites within Israel. They benefited from the rule of law and an economy that more than quadrupled without depending on foreign aid. Functioning schools and hospitals emerged, as did several universities.

 Oslo led not to the hoped-for end of conflict but inflamed Palestinian ambitions to eliminate the Jewish state. As Palestinian rage spiraled upward, more Israelis were murdered in the five years post-Oslo than in the fifteen years preceding it. Rabble-rousing speech and violent actions soared - and continue unabated 23 years later. Moreover, Palestinian delegitimization efforts cost Israel internationally as the left turned against it, spawning such anti-Zionist novelties as the UN World Conference against Racism in Durban and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.


Why did things go so wrong in what seemed so promising an agreement?

Moral responsibility for the collapse of Oslo lies solely with Yasir Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and the rest of the Palestinian Authority leadership. They pretended to abandon rejectionism and accept Israel's existence but, in fact, sought Israel's elimination in new, more sophisticated ways, replacing force with delegitimization.

This said, the Israelis made a profound mistake, having entered the Oslo process with a false premise. Yitzhak Rabin often summed up this error in the phrase "You don't make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies."[2] In other words, he expected war to be concluded through goodwill, conciliation, mediation, flexibility, restraint, generosity, and compromise, topped off with signatures on official documents. In this spirit, his government and all its successors agreed to a wide array of concessions, even to the point of permitting a Palestinian militia, always hoping the Palestinians would reciprocate by accepting the Jewish state.

They never did. To the contrary, Israeli compromises aggravated Palestinian hostility. Each gesture further radicalized, exhilarated, and mobilized the Palestinian body politic. Israeli efforts to "make peace" were received as signs of demoralization and weakness. "Painful concessions" reduced the Palestinian awe of Israel, m­­ade the Jewish state appear vulnerable, and inspired irredentist dreams of annihilation.



This brings us to the key concept of my approach, which is victory, or imposing one's will on the enemy, compelling him through loss to give up his war ambitions. Wars end, the historical record shows, not through goodwill but through defeat. He who does not win loses. Wars usually end when failure causes one side to despair, when that side has abandoned its war aims and accepted defeat, and when that defeat has exhausted its will to fight. Conversely, so long as both combatants still hope to achieve their war objectives, fighting either goes on or it potentially will resume.


Trouble is, none of these plans addresses the need to break the Palestinian will to fight. They all manage the conflict without resolving it. They all seek to finesse victory with a gimmick. Just as the Oslo negotiations failed, so too will every other scheme that sidesteps the hard work of winning.

This historical pattern implies that Israel has just one option to win Palestinian acceptance: a return to its old policy of deterrence, punishing Palestinians when they aggress. Deterrence amounts to more than tough tactics, which every Israeli government pursues; it requires systemic policies that encourage Palestinians to accept Israel and discourage rejectionism. It requires a long-term strategy that promotes a change of heart.

The goal here is not Palestinian love of Zion, but closing down the apparatus of war: shuttering suicide factories, removing the demonization of Jews and Israel, recognizing Jewish ties to Jerusalem, and "normalizing" relations with Israelis. Palestinian acceptance of Israel will be achieved when, over a protracted period and with complete consistency, the violence ends, replaced by sharply worded démarches and letters to the editor. Symbolically, the conflict will be over when Jews living in Hebron (in the West Bank) have no more need for security than Palestinians living in Nazareth (in Israel).








Syria’s army said Thursday it would halt all military operations from midnight, under a deal brokered by Russia and Turkey, with the opposition National Coalition announcing support for the agreement.


Earlier, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin announced the deal, saying the Syrian regime and “main forces of the armed opposition” had signed on.

It added that the halt excluded combat against the Islamic State group and the former Al-Qaeda affiliate previously known as Al-Nusra Front, now rebranded the Fateh al-Sham Front.

He said key rebel groups including the powerful Ahrar al-Sham and Army of Islam factions had signed the ceasefire deal, though there was no immediate confirmation from rebel officials.

The agreement comes after Syria’s government recaptured the country’s second city Aleppo from rebels, in the worst blow to opposition forces since the war began.
The ceasefire will be the first nationwide halt in fighting since a week-long truce September 12-19 that collapsed after several incidents of violence.












Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday made the bombshell claim that he has “confirmed evidence” that U.S.-led coalition forces provided support to terrorist groups in Syria, including ISIS.
Erdogan reportedly told reporters during a press conference in the Turkish capital of Ankara:

“They were accusing us of supporting Daesh [Islamic State].”
“Now they give support to terrorist groups including Daesh, YPG, PYD. It's very clear. We have confirmed evidence, with pictures, photos and videos.”


In addition to ISIS, Erdogan claimed U.S.-led coalition forces have also provided support to the Kurdish militant groups YPG and PYD, according to Reuters.
U.S.-led coalition forces have actively helped Syrian rebels battling Bashar al-Assad, but have never openly assisted ISIS or other terrorist groups. Erdogan apparently did not release the “evidence” he purports to have.
However, the Obama administration has faced harsh criticism amid numerous reports that U.S. weapons were ending up in the hands of ISIS fighters.






Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

The UN Declares War On Judeo-Christian Civilization, The Only Thing Kerry Didn't Say Was 'Apartheid', Brutalized On Social Media



The UN Declares War on Judeo-Christian Civilization


2016 has been a sumptuous year for the anti-Semites at the United Nations. The UN Security Council just targeted the only democracy in the Middle East: the State of Israel. The outgoing Obama Administration reportedly orchestrated what even Haaretz called a "hit and run" campaign in UN to denigrate the Jewish State and leave it to a fate where only conflict and hate loom. This is a cultural genocide that is no less dangerous than terror attacks. It is based on anti-Semitic lies and creates the atmosphere not for achieving "peace", as disingenuously claimed, but for perpetuating war.


UNSC Resolution 2334 is the culmination of a dizzyingly fruitful year for anti-Semites. Last November, committees of the UN General Assembly in a single day adopted 10 resolutions against Israel, the only open society in the Middle East. How many resolutions have been approved against Syria? One. How many against the rogue state of North Korea? One. How many against Russia when it annexed Crimea? One.


Not a single resolution was approved for those states which really abuse human rights, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Venezuela, China or Cuba, not to mention many virtual tyrannies throughout Africa. Only one resolution was approved for the "Palestinian refugee properties", but not even a single mention for the property of the Iraqi Christians in Mosul.

Another resolution in this racist banquet of the United Nations concerned the "application of the Geneva Convention in the occupied territories". There are hundreds of territorial disputes in the world, from Tibet to Cyprus, but only Israel deserves to be called out?

According to the liars at the United Nations, the most evil country in the world is Israel. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad, and Jordan's Prince Zeid al Hussein are sponsoring even now a "blacklist" of international companies that have ties with Israeli companies in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, to facilitate boycotting Israel in the evident hope of economically exterminating the only democracy and pluralistic nation in the region: the Jewish State.


The UN women's rights commission condemned Israel as the world's only violator of women's rights. Not Syria, where Assad's forces use rape as a tactic of war, or the Islamic State, which enslaves women from religious minorities. Not Saudi Arabia, where women are punished if they do not wear the Islamic full-covering clothing in scorching temperatures, or drive a car or even leave the house. Not Iran, where "adultery" (which can include being raped) is punishable by being stoned to death. And if Palestinian men beat their wives, it's Israel's fault, argued UN expert Dubravka Simonovic with a straight face.



Canadian law professor Michael Lynk was then appointed as the UN's "impartial" investigator of alleged Israeli human rights violations despite his long record of anti-Israel lobbying, including his board membership on many pro-Palestinian organizations, including Friends of Sabeel and the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations.
Last October, the UN cultural agency, UNESCO -- by magically declaring ancient Biblical Jewish sites "Islamic", even though Islam did not historically exist until the seventh century, hundreds of years later -- pretended, with the villainous complicity of the West, to erase the Jewish-Christian roots of Jerusalem.


It is a dreadful manipulation to try erase all Jewish and Christian history, to make believe that all the world was originally and forever only Islamic. It is a jihad. That is what a jihad looks like. It is not just orange jumpsuits, beheadings and slavery. If one can erase and rewrite history, one can redirect the future. If you do not know where you are coming from, what values will you defend or fight for?


Last month, the President of the UN General Assembly, Peter Thomson, sported the famous checkered scarf, the keffiyah, a symbol of the "Palestinian resistance" (read terrorism). This is simply the continuation of the cultural obliteration of Israel, which is supposed to justify next its physical obliteration.


The United Nations' war on the Israel's Jews is, at heart, a war against the West. The UN and its backers are briskly paving the way for the European Caliphate.








In a speech that lasted well over an hour, Kerry described settlements as an important obstacle to achieving an agreement between the sides and charged that Israeli actions in the West Bank were putting the two-state solution, which he said was the sole path to peace, “in serious jeopardy.”
Kerry argued that settlement construction in the West Bank was being “strategically placed in locations that make two states impossible” and said the “the status quo is leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation.”

But the prime minister said Kerry drew a “false moral equivalence” between construction in Jerusalem and Palestinian terrorism, and accused him of only “paying lip service” in his condemnation of terrorism. He noted that the controversial UN resolution, while condemning “incitement,” did not even attribute that incitement to the Palestinians. References to suicide bombers and millions of Israelis forced into bomb shelters by rocket attacks should not be “throwaway lines” in an address like this, he said..


“Israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace by world leaders,” Netanyahu said. “No one wants peace more than the people of Israel.”
Netanyahu said he looks forward to working with the incoming administration of Donald Trump to “repeal” the UN resolution.
“I wish I could be comforted” by Kerry’s promise not to seek further UN action, but the US said the same thing before the resolution passed,” the prime minister noted.

He speculated that other countries could advance another UN resolution while the US directed from behind the scenes. France might take it up, he suggested. Or Sweden, which he described as no friend of Israel.







About half an hour into John Kerry’s valedictory lecture from the State Department on Wednesday evening, Israel’s most popular television station, Channel 2, stopped broadcasting it live and switched to other programming. The country’s two other main TV stations, Channels 1 and 10, had already electronically left the building. Given that Kerry’s anti-settlement and anti-occupation address was primarily directed at the Israeli public, the ratings-conscious schedulers’ impatient transition to other material rather encapsulates the climate in which the secretary’s extensive remarks were being received here.

Kerry spent very little of his speech dealing with Palestinian violence and terrorism against Israel, and much of it assailing the settlements — continuing the assault he had begun at the Saban Center earlier this month. He also defended that resonant American abstention at the Security Council last Friday. He appeared to have realized that the resolution the US could not “in good conscience” veto has determined all parts of Jerusalem captured in 1967 — including, that is, the Western Wall and the Temple Mount — to be “occupied Palestinian territory.”

Ultimately, as he himself acknowledged in everything but the word, Kerry’s speech on Wednesday was an admission of failure: his failure to advance peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. At the end of a term in which he tried indefatigably to strong-arm Israelis and Palestinians into an accord, he finally concluded that it cannot be done now, and may not be possible for quite some time.
He would have had more chance of success — or at least of creating a climate in which prospects of progress would be brighter — had he focused more of his attentions on the toxic climate among Palestinians. They are relentlessly educated on the illegitimacy of Israel, with that narrative hammered home over social media, by their political and spiritual leadership, sometimes in their schools. He never strategically attempted to tackle that process of indoctrination.
Easier to place overwhelming blame on the settlers rather than the Palestinians. Or, heaven forbid, on yourself.
It’s been a difficult road, these past eight years. And in these final days, the depths of frustration and anger between Washington and Jerusalem have been laid bare.
Last Friday’s vote at the UN represented the most glaring instance in eight years of the president putting “daylight” between the United States and Israel, as he reportedly warned that he would back in 2009. Kerry’s speech on Wednesday pulled back the curtains all the way.








US Republican leadership dismissed on Wednesday Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, vowing a change in policy after President-elect Donald Trump takes office next month.
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan disparaged Kerry’s authority, tweeting that “after allowing this anti-Israel resolution to pass the UN, Secretary Kerry has no credibility to speak on Israeli-Palestinian peace.”

Miami Senator Marco Rubio said that Kerry had “decided to cater to the demands of freedom’s enemies and devote and entire speech to disparaging a country that is one of our closest allies.”
“I look forward to working with President-elect Donald Trump and his incoming team to restore our relationship with Israel to its proper place,” Rubio said in a statement.
Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks accused the administration of “playing the Jewish community for fools.”
“By claiming this speech is a framework for peace in the Middle East, President Obama and John Kerry are playing the Jewish community for fools,” Brooks after the speech.

“Their recent actions at the United Nations did nothing more than allow President Obama to take a parting shot at Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, while at the same time creating new roadblocks to peace. True peace in the region cannot be achieved by isolating Israel in the international community, but rather can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.”


Trump himself had disparaged Kerry’s speech before the secretary took the podium in Foggy Bottom, reiterating, in a series of tweets, his commitment to change policy one he takes office.
“We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the US, but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)!” the president-elect posted.








Secretary of State John Kerry sharply criticized Israel in a speech characterized as a “lecture” by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but he got much worse criticism from social media users who excoriated his tirade:


Bill Kristol  ✔@BillKristol
John Kerry entered public life 45 years ago slandering his fellow American servicemen. He leaves it slandering America's finest ally.

Frank Luntz  ✔@FrankLuntz
John Kerry’s Israel speech sums up Obama foreign policy of the past 8 years: Be tougher on our allies than we are on our enemies.


John Podhoretz  ✔@jpodhoretz
Hi. I'm John Kerry. I stood by as 500,000 Syrians were killed. Now let me tell Israel what to do, because I am a moral midget.

Gov. Mike Huckabee  ✔@GovMikeHuckabee
Now Susan Rice will have to go on all the Sunday talk shows and blame an Internet video for Kerry's speech.


Yes John Kerry, if only this orange sliver was smaller there would be peace.


Katie Pavlich  ✔@KatiePavlich
If you have to continually say "but we're great friends," you probably aren't   

Katie Pavlich  ✔@KatiePavlich
Kerry spending double the time condemning Israel and Israelis than he did to Hamas/Palestinian terrorists

Ben Shapiro  ✔@benshapiro
I liked the part when Kerry said Jews couldn't live in Palestinian territory because JEWS wouldn't accept it. Yeah, that's the problem.

Dan Bongino  ✔@dbongino
Note to John Kerry: you cannot "occupy" your own land. 


Dan Bongino  ✔@dbongino
John Kerry's embarrassing speech will surely be judged by history as a permanent stain on the failed Obama administration. 


Seth Mandel  ✔@SethAMandel
Reminder: last round of talks failed because Kerry lied to both sides and got caught.


Tennessee GOP @TEN_GOP
"Israel can be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both." ~ John Kerry.
But a Palestinian state can be Islamic? You can't make this up!

DPRK News Service @DPRK_News
Quest of mule-headed imbecile John Kerry for Middle East peace ends as it began: in futility, emptiness, and self-congratulatory onanism.








Just when you thought it was safe to turn Twitter down from '11', president-elect Donald Trump unleashes a triple whammy tweet-storm against the Obama administration, "shocking" the mainstream media with his frankness.
First, he took direct aim at Obama, assuing the outgoing president of hobbling the transition to the Republican’s administration by unspecified "inflammatory" statements and "roadblocks," as tensions between the two men spilled into the open less than a month before Inauguration Day.

Then unloaded a double-tweet aimed at the treatment of Israel. As a reminder, last week, Obama ordered Samantha Power to abstain from a vote on a resolution declaring Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal, allowing the measure to pass. Obama also said in an interview published by CNN on Monday that he would have beaten Trump, had he run for a third term.



Donald J. Trump  ✔@realDonaldTrump
We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but.......

not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!


As Bloomberg adds, the recent theatrics override the attempt by the two to mend relations: "after years of insults between the two men predating Trump’s run for the presidency, the real estate developer met with Obama shortly after the election and praised his character while promising to retain some initiatives, including portions of Obama’s signature health-care law. Both men have said they’ve spoken by phone more than once after that meeting. But their relations, at least in public, appear to have recently broken down."
And, as Obama ends his 'reign' with scorched earth tactics - somehow aimed at protecting his legacy - we suspect Trump's first 100 days will be spent busily unscrambling these eggs.







“The formula proposed by Secretary Kerry is impossible and does not correspond with reality. For 25 years Israel tried similar formulae but instead of peace we got islands of terror,” said Hotovely in a statement emailed to Breitbart Jerusalem.


“At the end of the day a resolution won’t be reached through speeches or unilateral moves at the UN. The Jewish People won’t give up its land for a terror state,” she said.






















Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)