By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media
No matter how false and misleading it is to cite the Iran deal as “signed,” when it is little more than a set of unenforceable political commitments, the news media continue to publish fake news arguing that somehow Iran and the P5+1 have agreed on a single text of the deal. In reality, the Iranian parliament endorsed a different version of the deal than was supposedly accepted by the P5+1, and the JCPOA was agreed upon without signatures or signatories.
Now President Obama is using a news organ of the U.S. government, RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, to sell the narrative that this is a signed deal. “Rohani has been accused of overhyping the agreement and being duped by Washington and five other world powers at the negotiating table,” reports Frud Bezhan for RadioLiberty. “In many ways, it mirrors the situation in the United States, where supporters have fended off consistent opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA), in which Tehran agreed to curtail its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, since it was signed in July 2015” (emphasis added). In other words, American critics should stop complaining because the Iranians don’t believe the deal benefited them either.
How can the author of that article not know that the Iran deal was not actually signed? It was the State Department’s Julia Frifield who sent a letter to Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) saying that the Iran deal is “not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document.” Rather, she wrote, this deal represents “political commitments” between Iran and other nations. How, exactly, can policymakers politically commit to something that the parties have not agreed on in writing, validated by signatures? There is no such document, and this news article is little more than government-funded propaganda.
Even The New York Times admits that the parties had to parse out different interpretations when it reported in January of last year that Iran and the United States had not yet agreed on “details of what kind of ‘advanced centrifuges’ Iran will be able to develop nearly a decade from now.” This, the Times stated, was “the kind of definitional difference that can undermine an accord”—yet these details were being worked out months later than when the agreement was supposedly signed.
“But as the first anniversary of implementation day approaches on January 16, Rohani has been saddled by the high expectations he set, as Iran’s economy continues to struggle and the great boost in foreign investment and other benefits he envisioned has so far failed to materialize,” reports RadioLiberty. There are a number of different landmarks in how the Iran Deal is supposed to be implemented, which allows the Obama administration to acknowledge multiple anniversaries of the deal.
For example, the White House celebrated July 14, 2016 as the first year anniversary of this unsigned deal. “Today marks one year since the conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal…by representatives of the United States, Iran, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, Russia, and the European Union,” read President Obama’s statement. “Over the last year, the Iran Deal has succeeded in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program, avoiding further conflict and making us safer.”
But there are multiple anniversaries that the administration, as well as the compliant press, can use to their political advantage, highlighting Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement. After all, there is the day of the agreement (July 14, 2015), Adoption Day (October 18, 2015), and Implementation Day (January 16, 2016). The Hill, in particular, published a news story on the anniversary this week which exclusively cites President Obama, and no other sources. In other words, this January anniversary is yet another chance for the mainstream media to produce more propaganda in favor of the unsigned and unenforceable deal.
“Today marks the one-year anniversary of the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—a deal that has achieved significant, concrete results in making the United States and the world a safer place,” reads President Obama’s statement this week. The Washington Times reports that Obama used the one-year anniversary to warn “Americans—chief among them President-elect Donald Trump—that unraveling the agreement would bring ‘much worse’ consequences.” In other words, Obama is willing to lie to the public about the contents of the deal in order to salvage his foreign policy legacy from Trump’s future actions.
Obama is on the same page with Iranian President Hassan Rohani, who had harsh words for President-elect Trump. On Tuesday, Rohani said that talk of renegotiating the deal was “meaningless,” and that he “doesn’t think [Trump] can do much when he gets to the White House.”
Trump has nominated Rep. Pompeo to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Pompeo, in response to the letter he received from the State Department, said that the deal was “nothing more than a press release and just about as enforceable.” Yet Obama continues to claim, again and again, that the Iran Deal will make the world safer. The opposite is true: Iran, under this deal, has been given a pathway to develop nuclear weapons.
I recently asked Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and a great friend of Israel, how this is a deal if it’s not signed. He said that “theoretically it wasn’t signed, but it was agreed to.” Theoretically? He said that it was a matter of semantics. “It was a bad deal,” he told me. “It doesn’t matter whether it was signed or not, it was a bad deal.”
Perhaps there is another anniversary that Obama should be celebrating—coordinating ransom money to the Iranians. According to The Wall Street Journal, “The U.S. Treasury Department wired the money [$1.7 billion] to Iran around the same time its theocratic government allowed three American prisoners to fly out of Tehran….The announcements coincided with the implementation of the nuclear agreement with Iran, lifting international economic sanctions in exchange for Iran curtailing its nuclear program.” President Obama claimed that this wasn’t a ransom payment—but the proximity to the release of U.S. prisoners demonstrates that this was, in fact, nothing short of buying off the Iranians.
If Obama wishes to celebrate, and the media continue to applaud, the anniversary of this terrible, unsigned agreement, then both parties must take ownership of how the ransom money sent to Iran—and sanctions relief—emboldens this totalitarian, theocratic regime.
Obama continues to appease the Iranians, opposing Congress’ recently renewed Iran Sanctions Act. The Wall Street Journal reported that Obama “decided to let the legislation imposing U.S. restrictions on Iran’s missile program become law without his signature” and that the law had overwhelming bipartisan support from Congress. In fact, the vote in the Senate was 99-0. In response, Rohani “ordered the development of a nuclear-powered system for ships, a move described as retaliation for the sanctions extension,” yet Obama’s press secretary, Josh Earnest, claimed that “Iran’s decision does not violate the nuclear deal.”
What, exactly, would violate this unsigned, unenforceable agreement? The fact that the parties have not signed this agreement, and that Iran has a different conception of the deal, means that Iran’s belligerence, and the deceit from both Iran and the Obama administration, amounts to a very challenging mess for the incoming Trump administration. Will the “art of the deal” prevail, or is a military confrontation inevitable?
By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media
Left-wing Democrat Norman Solomon says fellow Democrats are “more interested in playing to the press gallery than speaking directly to the economic distress of voters in the Rust Belt and elsewhere who handed the presidency” to Donald J. Trump. Democrats should spend some time learning “how they’ve lost touch with working-class voters,” he says.
He is referring to how Democrats are saying what the media want to hear—that Trump was elected because of Vladimir Putin and the Russians. This was the claim first advanced by President Obama’s CIA in leaks to The Washington Post and The New York Times.
But this is not just a political dispute involving Democrats failing to understand why they lost to Trump. Solomon says “the emerging incendiary rhetoric against Russia is extremely dangerous” and “could lead to a military confrontation between two countries that each has thousands of nuclear weapons,” and which could trigger a “nuclear holocaust.”
Solomon, a former Democratic congressional candidate, says that Democrats, by “teaming up with the likes of Republican Senators John McCain (AZ) and Lindsey Graham (SC) to exert bipartisan pressure for escalation,” could help “stampede the Trump administration in reckless directions” and provoke Russia into a war.
There is no evidence that the Trump administration could be “stampeded” in that way. Trump has said repeatedly that he is not interested in a confrontation with Russia. What seems to be consuming the attention of the incoming Trump administration are the no-win wars with ISIS and al-Qaeda that Obama will leave behind, and the corruption in the Intelligence Community that has been responsible for claims that the U.S. is winning the war against radical Islam.
Trump’s new CIA director, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), is a member of the House Intelligence Committee and participated in a congressional joint task force that documented in a report how U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) manipulated intelligence to downplay the threat from ISIS. Three months after Pompeo and his colleagues issued their report, he said that those responsible for downplaying the threat from ISIS had not yet been held accountable.
Pompeo said the manipulation of intelligence resulted from “an administration-wide understanding that bad news from Iraq and Syria was not welcomed.” He added, “Claims that ISIS was the ‘JV team’ and that al-Qaeda was ‘on the run’ were both a result—and a cause—of the politicization of intelligence at CENTCOM. This intelligence manipulation provided space for both ISIS and al-Qaeda to grow and it put America at risk.”
Obama, of course, was responsible for the claims that ISIS was the “JV team” and that al-Qaeda was “on the run.” He lied to the American people about progress in the war on terror.
Obama’s Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said on December 15 that ISIS was “failing” and that “the campaign to defeat the terror group in Iraq and Syria is on track.” Five days earlier, Carter had announced that 200 additional American special operations troops would be heading to Syria to liberate Raqqa, ISIS’ de facto capital in Syria. That will bring the total number of U.S. troops in Syria to 500.
Obama’s war in Syria has never been authorized by Congress.
Meanwhile, Foreign Affairs magazine has published an article demonstrating that, after a defeat and a loss of territory, “ISIS members don’t simply give up their cause or switch their allegiance; they merely change their tactics,” reforming into small units conducting insurgency campaigns.
According to the article, these terrorists operate under different flags. The authors cite the case of an ex-Iraqi policeman who fought for al-Qaeda and later emerged under the ISIS banner. It is possible, the authors say, that “insurgent group numbers will only continue to increase, as will their power.” The authors say there is little room for optimism that the Baghdad regime being supported by the U.S. will address the sectarian grievances that fuel the conflict.
ISIS has expanded into Afghanistan, where a counterterrorism official says the terrorist group is “present in at least 11 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces.”
Reflecting the deteriorating situation, Obama’s decision that the U.S. would draw down to 5,500 troops in the country has been changed. Now, approximately 8,400 military personnel will remain at the time that Trump takes office.
Fighting terrorists isn’t the only item on the agenda. American sailors deployed in Afghanistan underwent Transgender Policy Training in Kabul on November 24. According to an official press release, sailors were told about the policy that took effect on October 1, whereby they could “begin the process to officially change their gender in the Navy administrative systems following DoD policy and in accordance to the standards delineated.”
A website reflecting the views of Christian military officers described the training this way: “The US Navy began teaching its Sailors about women thinking they’re men, and vice versa, even as they’re deployed in Afghanistan—a nation, incidentally, in which transgenders would probably be tossed in jail or executed.”
Not to worry. The official Pentagon spokesman says the Afghanistan mission also remains “on track.”
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | Right Wing News
Obama has been an utter failure where the military is concerned and that has been by deliberate design. He has gutted our forces to WWI levels. He has decommissioned our ships, artillery and planes. He has stripped the troops of needed supplies, food and weaponry. Then he has imposed a perverse social engineering on them to destroy their morale. In other words, he has tried to destroy the greatest military force on the planet and he almost succeeded. What he didn’t count on was Donald Trump and his strong military Cabinet.
Is it any wonder that Obama leaves office and is roundly hated among members of the military? They can’t wait for President-elect Donald Trump to take command. He’s already said that he is planning on massively expanding the Navy. He’s negotiating new aircraft and he has vowed that our Army will be the strongest in the world once more. I have seen high ranking military men literally weep when shaking Trump’s hand. That tells you everything you need to know right there.
From the Daily Mail:
President Obama is leaving the White House with majority disapproval among members of the military for his role as commander in chief, according to a new survey at the tail end of his presidency.
Obama’s move steep reduction of U.S. forces stationed in Afghanistan after a troop surge, and his withdrawal of forces from Iraq in keeping with a status of forces agreement, doesn’t appear to have carried support in the the military.
Forty three per cent said the U.S. should deploy more troops to combat zones, while 32 per cent favored reductions, according to the poll by Military Times and the Institute for Veterans and Military Families at Syracuse University.
President-elect Donald Trump’s campaigned on a call to make ‘America first’ and avoid overseas engagements.
The poll said 49 per cent backed President-elect Donald Trump in the campaign, compared to just 29 per cent for Hillary Clinton. Each touted their support among military brass during the campaign.
Election exit polls had Clinton beating Trump among military members by 50 to 44 per cent, while Trump beat her among veterans 60 to 34 per cent, CNN reported.
Obama got a 52 percent unfavorable rating in the survey, AOL reported. He had an 18 per cent favorable rating with 18.4 per cent rating him somewhat favorably.
More than half the troops despise Obama. 49% voted for Trump in the survey and I’ll just bet it was more than that. When Obama gave his military farewell speech, he gave it to an empty stadium. No one respects the man… they detest him and his weakness and hatred of the military. Every action that Obama has taken from Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Libya, to Yemen, to Syria has been an unmitigated disaster for the US. The only ones it has helped are the Islamic butchers we are supposed to be fighting. I contend that was on purpose. Yesterday, Obama just approved enough uranium to the Iranians for ten nukes and he has gifted them billions of our dollars… exactly whose side is he on? I think that is obvious.
The exit polls on election day were a massive lie. They showed the military breaking for Clinton. It’s abundantly clear that was not the case. Obama has made us extremely less safe and capable as a nation and militarily… Clinton would have finished us off. Obama has actually assisted ISIS in their growth and atrocities. He’s also aided al Qaeda. He says one thing, but it is what he has actually done that makes his actions so treasonous.
Obama’s farewell to the military was to an empty stadium, whereas George W. Bush’s was to a packed one. Our warriors know a true leader when they serve under one. The only real salute Obama gets on his way out the White House door is a one-fingered one. It’s all he deserves.
By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media
President Obama’s assertion that the Islamic State was a “JV” team demonstrates how he arrogantly ignored the possibility that this jihadist terror group could eventually threaten the United States. But what the press will not report is that President Obama is at least partially responsible for the arming of ISIS.
A recent article by Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily sheds further light on how former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama worked to actively arm Syrian rebels, ultimately supporting groups that would coalesce into the Islamic State.
“…[I]t’s become increasingly clear that President Obama and his secretary of state at the time, Hillary Clinton in 2011, armed the Free Syrian Army rebels in an effort to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad, mirroring a strategy already under way in Libya to help al-Qaida-affiliated militia overthrow Moammar Gadhafi,” writes Corsi. “A consequence of the strategy was the emergence of ISIS out of the loosely coordinated Free Syrian Army coalition as well as the disastrous Benghazi attack in which a U.S. ambassador was murdered.”
In other words, Mrs. Clinton and Obama are at least partially responsible for the current Middle East chaos, the death of four brave Americans at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi, and Islamic State-inspired homegrown terrorism. In Syria, the civil war has cost 470,000 lives as of last February, according to The New York Times, a half million by most estimates today. But don’t look to the Times or other news organizations to blame President Obama or former presidential candidate Clinton for the death toll.
Corsi cites the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, which came to a similar conclusion in our 2016 Benghazi report, which is entitled “Betrayal in Benghazi: A Dereliction of Duty.” “It is notable, however, that [Syrian Free Army] statements from the 2012 time period complained that they were not receiving any missiles,” states our report, continuing, “it now appears that at least some of the recipients instead were jihadist units that would eventually coalesce into the Islamic State.”
Our 2014 interim report revealed that the Obama administration had switched sides in the War on Terror by arming al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya in a successful bid to overthrow our counterterrorism ally Muammar Qaddafi. The Obama administration, in its zeal to arm the rebels, even stymied truce talks that could have led to a peaceful transition.
And, as we wrote in our 2016 report, Ambassador Chris Stevens, then “U.S. envoy,” coordinated his efforts with Abdelhakim Belhadj, despite the latter’s connections to al-Qaeda.
“The [2014 CCB] report asserted the agenda of al-Qaida-affiliated jihadis in the region, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other Islamic terror groups represented among the rebel forces, was well known to U.S. officials responsible for Libya policy,” reports Corsi in his recent article.
Corsi notes that there was considerable lobbying to convince Washington that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was a “moderate group.” This, he writes, was “despite clear evidence the al-Nusra Front—operating under the FSA umbrella—had been declared a terrorist organization by the State Department; had pledged allegiance to al-Qaida’s top leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri; and was the group of choice for foreign jihadi fighters pouring into Syria.” But there are still those who believe that the U.S. could have actually worked with the FSA and coalesced an effective fighting force around them, dramatically changing the course of history in that region. We’ll never know for sure.
The Obama administration engaged in regime change policies in both Syria and Libya despite the fact that such efforts would likely lead to more violence and chaos in the region. Corsi notes that the Obama administration even armed Ansar al Sharia, which was responsible for the September 11, 2012 Benghazi terror attacks.
The Obama administration has repeatedly sided with the enemies of America, from arming al-Qaeda-linked rebels abroad, to making political commitments with and providing sanctions relief for the totalitarian regime of Iran. This has been a great betrayal of American values and puts American citizens in harm’s way.
Several opinion journalists on the left have come around to acknowledging the disastrous role that the Obama administration has played in the region, particularly in Syria. As we previously reported, Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times called Syria Obama’s “worst mistake.”
Richard Cohen wrote in The Washington Post that Obama “has been all too happy to preside over the loss of American influence. Aleppo, Syria, now a pile of rubble, is where countless died—as did American influence.”
Leon Wieseltier of the Brookings Institution and formerly of The New Republic offered the harshest criticism: “As a direct or indirect consequence of our refusal to respond forcefully to the Syrian crisis, we have beheld secular tyranny, religious tyranny, genocide, chemical warfare, barrel bombs and cluster bombs, the torture and murder of children, the displacement of 11 million people, the destabilization of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, the ascendancy of Iran in the region, the emergence of Russia as a global power, the diminishment of the American position in the world, the refugee crisis in Europe, the resurgence of fascism in Europe and a significant new threat to the security of the United States. It is amazing how much doing nothing can do, especially when it is we who do nothing.”
Secretary of State John Kerry claimed at a press briefing on Thursday that Obama’s decision not to take action after the Syrians had crossed his stated “red line” by using chemical weapons, was the right move and succeeded because the result was that all of the chemical weapons were removed from Syria without dropping a bomb. Few are buying that argument, as chemical weapons were used again in Aleppo before it fell recently to the Syrian regime, or as Russia and Syria view it, was liberated from the various terrorist groups that held its civilians as human shields in a no-win situation.
Hosted by DENISE SIMON, the Senior Research / Intelligence Analyst for Foreign and Domestic Policy for numerous flag officers and intelligence organizations.
SEGMENT 1: Andrew Kramer, New York Times, Moscow based investigative journalist explains the hacker, troll and information war conflict between the Kremlin in Russia and the West including Ukraine. Fascinating information.
SEGMENT 2: Dr. Martin Sherman, Founder of Israel Institute for Strategic Studies explained Israel’s political posture globally and with the two United Nations resolutions including the nuclear deal and the land for peace regarding the Palestinians.
SEGMENTS 3 & 4: Eric Tallant, currently assigned in Kabul, Afghanistan explains the conditions in country including disinformation, Taliban, Pakistan and more.
THURSDAYS: 9:00PM (eastern) on:
WJHC – Talk 107.5FM
WDDQ – Talk 92.1FM
WLBB – News Talk 1330AM
And on her Digital Flagship Station: RED NATION RISING RADIO – The NEW Dominant Force in Conservative Talk Radio
By: Denise Simon | FoundersCode.com
Sometimes when a panel is mobilized that includes media, negotiators, diplomats and legislators, interesting facts emerge. Such is the case where President George W. Bush convened a panel at the George W. Bush Institute on the matter of North Korea. Going beyond the proven human rights violations by the Kims, there is more to understand when it comes to relationships including the DPRK, China, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Syria and more.
There is a U.S. citizen currently in prison doing slave labor in N. Korea but John Kerry voids his failure to get Otto Warmbier released. Kerry deferred the process to former governor Bill Richardson and there has been no progress.
The DPRK is in fact developing technology and weapons systems that are not only being tested but being sold to rogue nations for revenue purposes.
GW Bush has reached out to North Koreans that have escaped and made their way to the United States in a manner where they provide information and continued work for the benefit of Congress, the State Department, diplomatic objectives and policy to address the Kim regime going forward.
This is a fascinating discussion where real truths are revealed pointing to labor, human rights violations, military and nuclear operations, trade and more. North Korea is stacking missiles on launch pads and working on miniaturized nuclear weapons. The objective is to reach the United States. What has John Kerry done for deterrents? Nothing….
North Korea’s Rockets and Missiles
Space/2013: North Korea’s missile program is shrouded in secrecy, which helps the outlaw nation keep the rest of the world guessing.Still, Western experts have learned a fair bit about Pyongyang’s stable of rockets and missiles over the years by analyzing test flights, satellite photos and other data. Here are five of the most interesting things they’ve figured out.
FIRST STOP: Soviet Origins of Missiles
The Hermit Kingdom’s missile program is based primarily on Soviet Scuds, which apparently entered the country via Egypt in the 1970s. North Korea was building its own Scud version, called the Hwasong-5, by the mid-1980s, and moved onto bigger and more powerful missiles after that. [North Korea’s Missile Capabilities Explained]NEXT: Poor Accuracy
North Korea’s missiles have lousy accuracy compared to those developed by the United States, experts say. Pyongyang’s Hwasong line, for example, can reach targets a few hundred miles away, but with an accuracy of just 0.3 miles to 0.6 miles (0.5 to 1 kilometer).A missile called the Nodong can fly 620 miles to 800 miles (1,000 to 1,300 km), but its estimated accuracy is even worse — 1.8 to 2.5 miles (3 to 4 km). Such missiles can’t reliably hit military targets, but they can certainly strike larger targets such as cities.
NEXT: Iran’s Help
Cooperation with Iran
North Korea has apparently cooperated extensively with fellow pariah nation Iran on rocket and missile technology. For example, the third stage of Pyongyang’s Unha-2 rocket is very similar to the upper stage of Iran’s Safir-2 launcher, physicists David Wright and Theodore Postol noted in a 2009 report.NEXT: Satellite Success
Satellite Launch Success
North Korea joined the ranks of satellite-launching nations last December, when its Unha-3 rocket launched a small satellite to Earth orbit.This breakthrough came after three consecutive failures — one in 1998, one in 2009 and another in April 2012. North Korean officials didn’t always admit to these mishaps, however. For example, they claimed that the Kwangmyongsong-1 (“Bright Star 1”) satellite reached orbit in 1998 and broadcast patriotic songs into space. [Unha-3 Rocket Explained (Infographic)]
NEXT: Nuclear Warheads Possible
Nuclear Warheads Possible
North Korea has been ratcheting up its bellicose rhetoric lately, threatening to launch nuclear strikes against Washington, D.C. and other American cities.While the rogue nation’s nuclear-weapons program is thought to be at a relatively primitive stage, Pyongyang may indeed already possess warheads small enough to be carried large distances by a ballistic missile, experts say. “Having something that’s around 1,000 kilograms, or maybe somewhat smaller than that, unfortunately does not seem impossible,” Wright told SPACE.com. “We don’t really know, but I think you have to take seriously that they could well be there.”
Most analysts doubt, however, that North Korean missiles are powerful enough to deliver a nuclear weapon to the American mainland. The tough talk from Pyongyang is primarily bluster aimed at wringing concessions out of the international community and building support for young leader Kim Jong-Un at home, they say.
Regrettably, I encountered a transmission problem of significant proportions when I sent out my last email posting, “Anger, and Not Panic,” written in response to the Security Council Resolution 2334 which passed because of Obama’s decision to abstain. It was a brief piece, providing reassurance as to the limits of the damage from this perfidy. But somewhere between one-third and one-half of my readers never received it.
The problem is not solved, although I hope it will be by some time next week. Know that I am doing my best and mighty frustrated.
I will not resend that email because I want to move on. It can be found on this site.
But I do highly recommend an analysis that has just come out from Alan Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and the head of the Global Law Forum. I think you will find this article highly informative and considerably reassuring.
The bitterness? It’s palpable. There’s a sense of betrayal, of being knifed from multiple directions.
That is because of Obama’s stance, which is a reversal of US policy and former commitments. In his 2011 address to the UN he said repeatedly that a genuine peace can be achieved only via direct negotiations between Israel and the PA. “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations,” he declared. This rather confirms that his motivation for his current stance is not “peace” at all, but sticking it to Israel. Not that this comes as a surprise.
And because no other nation on the Council stood with Israel (I’ll come back to this).
And because the resolution itself is so shockingly one-sided – lacking perspective and anything resembling justice, relying instead on a gross distortion of historical reality:
 It refers to all Israeli presence beyond the Green Line as “a flagrant violation of international law.” This means the Kotel and Har HaBayit and much, much more, including the Mount of Olives, where Jews have been buried for 3,000 years.
 It refers to all territory beyond the Green Line as “occupied Palestinian territory” and demands that Israel cease “all settlement activity” – which is Israel’s “legal obligation.”
These are facts that refute the position of this resolution:
 The British Mandate for Palestine of 1922, passed unanimously by the League of Nations, was an article of international law. It recognized the Jewish historical connection to the land, and conferred upon Britain responsibility for establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Britain was to “encourage…close settlement by Jews on the land.” (This was in ALL of Palestine.)
 The partition plan of 1947, which proposed dividing Palestine into two states carried no weight legally because it was merely a recommendation by the UN General Assembly. In any event, the Arabs rejected it. The Mandate stood.
 Israel declared independence on a portion of Palestine in 1948. The remainder remained unclaimed Mandate land. There is a principle in customary international law that when a new state is founded, its borders follow the borders of the administrative entity that existed prior.
 As soon as (actually, even before) independence was declared, the Arab states declared war.
When the War of Independence was over in 1949, armistice lines were drawn. THIS was the Green Line. To Israel’s east, the armistice line was between Israel and Jordan. There was no mention of “Palestinians.” The armistice agreement signed between Israel and Jordan stated specifically that the armistice line (i.e. the Green Line) was only a temporary line that would not prejudice a permanent border, to be determined via negotiations. At that point, Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem illegally – it acquired the area in an offensive war and its occupation of the area was recognized by only two states in the world.
 During the Six Day War of 1967, Jordan broke its armistice with Israel by joining in attack. By the end of the war, Israel had liberated Judea and Samaria, and east Jerusalem. This was Mandate land. What is more, Israel’s right to it was strengthened by the fact that it was secured in an defensive war.
 Within months, the Security Council had passed Resolution 242. It did NOT call for Israel to return to the Green Line. It recognized that this line did not constitute a secure border for Israel, something to which all nations are entitled. It said that the final border would be determined via negotiations. Again: the negotiations were to be with Jordan; there was no mention of “Palestinians.”
 In 1994, Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty. The border determined by this treaty followed the border of the Mandate. In the area of Judea and Samaria, this is the Jordan River.
 In 1995, the Interim Accord of Oslo was signed (and was witnessed by US President Bill Clinton). It divided Judea and Samaria into three administrative areas. Area C is under full Israeli civil and military control. There is NOTHING in Oslo that prohibits Israel from building in C.
Under Oslo – which actually does not speak specifically of a Palestinian “state” – a final status resolution was to be determined by negotiations between Israel and the PA.
As Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs notes, The Palestinians themselves agreed in the 1995 Interim Agreement that the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank should be addressed as an item for negotiation between the parties.
Please note that in none of the above is there a legal prohibition on Israeli building in Judea and Samaria, or now, at a minimum, in Area C.
There is absolutely no indication in “international law” that Israel belongs only behind the 1947 armistice line. Be aware that the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters invoke “international law” as it suits them.
There is no international law that prohibits an Israeli presence in any part of Judea and Samaria, that is, that determines that it is all “occupied Palestinian land.”
The Palestinian Arabs have done a superb job of promoting falsehoods that are now adopted by a bulk of the world’s nations, without regard for justice or historical reality.
A quick word about Israel’s alleged “occupation” of Judea and Samaria. First, a nation cannot “occupy” its own land, and this is Israeli land according to the international law of the Mandate.
Occupation occurs only when the army of one sovereign state moves into the territory of another sovereign state. But Judea and Samaria was not the territory of any other sovereign state: Jordan was there illegally.
The Geneva Convention does not apply to this situation, although is sometimes claimed.
I spoke above about Obama’s reversal of US policy, and his decision to abstain. But, as has now been revealed, he actually helped to craft the resolution and pushed it vigorously behind the scenes.
Israeli Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer has told CNN that there is solid evidence of Obama’s orchestration of the resolution.
“We will present this evidence to the new administration through the appropriate channels. If they want to share it with the American people they are welcome to do it.” As Dermer put it, Obama was behind the “ganging up” on Israel at the Security Council.
According to Netanyahu spokesman David Keyes, the solid information comes from Arab countries and others in the international community.
On Sunday night, Netanyahu went to the Kotel to light the second Chanukah candle. Standing there, he declared:
“I ask those same countries that wish us a Happy Chanukah how they could vote for a U.N. resolution which says that this place, in which we are now celebrating Chanukah, is occupied territory.
“The Western Wall is not occupied. The Jewish Quarter is not occupied.” (Emphasis added)
Credit: prime minister’s office
Our prime minister is very very angry, and with excellent reason. Yesterday, he declared that Israel will not “turn the other cheek.”
US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro was called in for a 45 minute dressing down by Prime Minister Netanyahu. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that meeting. Other ambassadors were also called in, but Netanyahu met only with Shapiro, because of the expectations of US friendship that had been so severely dashed.
As to the other nations on the Security Council: five permanent members, China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly: Angola, Egypt, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal, Spain, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Venezuela…
The four that sponsored the resolution after Egypt withdrew were Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela. Israel does not have diplomatic ties with Venezuela or Malaysia. The ambassadors to New Zealand and Senegal were recalled for consultations.
The situation with Senegal was particularly disappointing. Israel has been providing agricultural technology to small farmers, and through Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation 4,000 farms were being supported.
Netanyahu has now ordered a cut-off of all assistance to Senegal, as well as the cancellation of the upcoming visit of the Senegalese foreign minister. The message: you cannot accept Israel’s outstretched hand, gladly taking the assistance offered, and then actively promote a resolution that is destructive to Israel.
Similarly, has assistance to Angola been terminated.
As to the other nations, some were a lost cause, of course. But in other instances, a different response might have been expected.
Theresa May, new prime minister of the UK, speaks in very pro-Israel terms, at least part of the time. The UK, as a permanent member of the Council, could have cast the necessary veto, but voted for the resolution. Netanyahu has now cancelled a planned meeting with May at the sidelines of the Davos World Economic Forum. May declares herself “disappointed.”
And the Ukraine, which is traditionally considered a friend of Israel, voted for the resolution anyway. Netanyahu has now cancelled the visit of Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman, who was due here next week. Ukrainians at first were miffed about this cancellation, and expressed surprise at Netanyahu’s anger. “The text of the resolution is balanced,” said the Ukrainian foreign ministry, which subsequently spoke about expectation that warm ties would endure.
(It is being charged, by the way, that V.P. Biden placed a call to the Ukraine that “encouraged” support on the resolution.)
Netanyahu has been criticized in some quarters for what is seen as an over-reaction. I see it otherwise. Time to hold our heads up in an attitude of self-respect: Don’t claim friendship with us and knife us in the back when it suits. Some of Netanyahu’s positions will undoubtedly mellow over time, but it’s not bad to deliver a new message now.
Look at this: Ukrainian MP Alexander Feldman, who is Jewish, has announced on his Facebook page that he intends to submit a bill for moving the Ukrainian embassy to Jerusalem. He hopes this will bring the Ukrainian-Israeli relationship to a whole new level.
Doesn’t mean this proposal will succeed – it flies directly in the face of the resolution. But would Feldman even have suggested this if not for Netanyahu’s anger?
Netanyahu is also evaluating Israel’s relationship with the UN.
Defense Minister Lieberman has instructed COGAT [Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories] to have no interaction with the PA except on security matters. See more on what this entails here:
The simple fact of the matter is that the PA is behind this resolution. Their current gloating is obscene. This has been their intention all along: to achieve ends without negotiations and without compromise.
This is a cartoon that Fatah put on its Facebook page after the resolution passed. The Arabic is the list of nations that supported the vote. It suggests an international endorsement of terrorism.
Lieberman also had something to say about France: The French, ludicrously, are planning a “peace conference” on January 15, five days before Obama leaves office. He has called it a “modern day Dreyfus trial. There’s only one difference, this time, instead of the defendant being one Jew, it will be the entire nation of Israel and the State of Israel.
“This summit’s entire purpose is to undermine the State of Israel’s security and tarnish its good name.” (Emphasis added)
(The Dreyfus affair, at the end of the 19th century, was a French scandal during which an innocent Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jew, was convicted of treason. Anti-Semitism was at work in France then, and now.)
My readers can rest assured that Israel has no intention whatsoever of halting building in Judea and Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem. Quite the contrary.
As I complete this and prepare for transmission, I am aware that Secretary of State Kerry is scheduled to give a speech outlining his vision of a “comprehensive peace” between Israel and the PA. I’m sure it will be chock full of untenable ideas and outright lies that seek to further the damage to Israel. There is nothing but nothing he could say that would be constructive or original. How much damage this will do remains to be seen. I must deal with this in my next posting.
Recently, Kerry sent out a “Happy Chanukah” message.
One blogger replied, “Go choke on a latke.” On that note, I close.
By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media
Patrick Buchanan’s provocative column, “Is Europe’s future Merkel or Le Pen?” reflects a limited and bad choice for America and Europe. Both of these leaders serve Russian interests. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s pro-immigration policies have destabilized Europe, leading to the rise of pro-Putin right-wing political parties. Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front party, one of those pro-Putin political parties, wants to destroy NATO, a long-time Russian goal.
The terrible choices facing the United States mean that we are in the biggest crisis the West has faced since World War II. The dilemma outlined by Patrick Buchanan means that the incoming Trump administration has to recognize that Germany, the most important country in Europe, is in the hands of a Russian agent of influence. Despite running as the candidate of the conservative-leaning Christian Democratic Union, Merkel has destabilized her country and much of Europe by facilitating a Muslim invasion. Her involvement in the Communist Party of East Germany, when it was a major base of Soviet espionage operations, goes a long way toward explaining her curious behavior.
In a column titled, “The Suicide of Germany,” Guy Millière writes, “The attack in Berlin on December 19, 2016 was predictable. German Chancellor Angela Merkel created the conditions that made it possible. She bears an overwhelming responsibility.” He notes, “When she decided to open the doors of Germany to hundreds of thousands of Muslims from the Middle East and more distant countries, she must have known that jihadists were hidden among the people flooding in. She also must have known that the German police had no way of controlling the mass that entered and would be quickly overwhelmed by the number of people it would have to control. She did it anyway.” (emphasis added)
The “she must have known” formulation is more evidence of a deliberate policy to destabilize Europe. She intends to run for re-election in 2017.
Labeled a “populist” by Buchanan, Marine Le Pen, the leading candidate for the presidency of France in 2017, talks a lot about French sovereignty but acts like a tool of Moscow. The Russia Today (RT) propaganda channel highlights her call for “closer ties with Russia” and opposition to U.S.-led NATO.
In events that have shocked the liberal media, Trump and/or his advisers have been reported to be meeting with representatives of European right-wing political parties, some of them pro-Putin. However, Trump’s national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, has written in his own book that there is a “Russia connection” to Islamic terror networks and “many of the KGB’s safe houses, station headquarters, and secure communications networks were put at the disposal of terror groups.” This implicates Vladimir Putin, former officer and head of the KGB, in the conflicts that have spilled over into Europe and Israel.
Meanwhile, as commentators in the U.S. criticize the Obama administration for abstaining on the anti-Israel United Nations resolution, it is no surprise that Russia and China both voted for it. Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich did not miss the significance of this anti-Israel vote, commenting, “So Russia having illegally occupied Crimea and eastern Ukraine votes to condemn Israel for ‘occupied lands.’ We are supposed to be impressed.” He might have mentioned China’s own illegal seizures of territory.
“Russia has never ruled Israel,” notes one Israeli commentator, Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz, “but the Russian Army has never stood as close to Jerusalem as it does today.” Professor Efraim Inbar of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies tells the publication, “It should be remembered that Russia sides with Iran, supports Hezbollah, and even has relations with Hamas.”
Turkey, a member of NATO, has since joined with Russia and Iran, the new powers in the region, for talks. It has been forced into the arms of Russia because of the Obama administration’s failure to save Syria from Russian aggression that propped up an unpopular and repressive dictatorship. In truth, Obama help accelerate the conflict when he ordered his CIA to support “rebels” against the Syrian regime that were linked to jihadist groups. They were no match for the superior Russian and Iranian forces which intervened on the side of the Syrian regime. Up to 500,000 were killed.
Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem will have symbolic value. But it does nothing to protect Israel from an attack by its regional enemies bearing Russian arms.
One way to turn the tide is to order the CIA out of the terror-supporting business and start shining the light on Russia’s historical links to Islamic terrorism, known as the Red Jihad. These connections, which still exist, are not only a threat to Israel but demonstrate that “Red Russia” is behind the immigration crisis and the Muslim invasion of Europe.
Obama is leaving the White House. His ability to damage Israel and other U.S. allies will soon end. But Putin has only just begun to fight. What’s at stake is the control of Europe and the entire Middle East.
If President Trump falls for Putin’s offers of a truce, he will demonstrate to his political enemies and even his supporters that he was in fact a dupe of the Russians.
By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media
It’s amazing how CNN’s talking heads can devote so much time to the “scandal” of Donald J. Trump’s sons participating in interviews of cabinet picks, but can’t connect the dots between the bloody tragedy in Aleppo and President Barack Obama’s pro-terrorist policy in the Middle East.
During the day on Wednesday, we saw CNN repeatedly air gruesome film footage of the massacre of civilians in Aleppo by the Russians and their Iranian and Syrian puppets. Not once did any CNN talking head bother to point out that Obama’s policy of intervention, through support of terrorist groups in Syria who are losing the war, may have had a role in the unfolding massacre.
In a scandal that makes the alleged Russian hacking of Democratic emails appear minor by comparison, a Democratic member of the U.S. House has taken to the House floor to say that Obama’s CIA has been aiding the Islamic terrorist groups ISIS and al-Qaeda for the purpose of overthrowing the Syrian regime.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) introduced legislation to curb the Obama administration’s pro-terrorist policy, calling it the Stop Arming Terrorists bill (H.R. 6405).
A member of the House Armed Services Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, Gabbard served two tours of duty in the Middle East, and continues her service as a major in the Army National Guard.
In a December 8 press release, Gabbard said, “Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.”
By U.S. government she means the Obama administration.
Specifically, she named the CIA, saying, “The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish strongholds throughout Syria, including in Aleppo.”
Gabbard made similar remarks on the House floor.
Since Gabbard is a Democrat, these seem to be extraordinary allegations that cannot be dismissed as partisan sniping from Obama’s political enemies. Can it be that Obama is arming terrorists at a time when the U.S. is supposed to be fighting them? This seems like insanity, even treason.
You may recall that Obama once threatened the Syrian regime not to cross a “red line” in its offensive military operations. The “red line” today is covered with the blood of people in Aleppo because Obama never enforced it. All he did was support terrorist and other groups opposed to the regime. They are losing the war.
Is it actually true that Obama has been arming terrorists through the CIA? It’s interesting to point out that Gabbard quoted news accounts from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
But these papers did not make this into even a minor scandal. The media have now moved on to the CIA’s allegations against Trump and the Russians. It’s a convenient change of subject that is designed to shield Obama’s legacy from the evidence of how he contributed to the conflict, and did nothing to stop a massacre, once his side began to lose.
On Jake Tapper’s CNN show on December 8, the issue got some attention, as Tapper seemed caught off-guard and was unfamiliar with what Obama’s CIA has been doing in the region. This is the exchange with Gabbard that took place:
Tapper: You say [loopholes] have allowed American taxpayer dollars to fund terror groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria. Are you—are you suggesting that the U.S. government is funding these terrorist groups?
Gabbard: I’m not only suggesting it. This is—this is the reality that we’re living in.
Tapper: Not directly, though.
Gabbard: Most Americans—you know, if you were—I were to go and provide money, weapons, or support or whatever to a group like Al Qaeda or ISIS, you would immediately be thrown in jail. However, the U.S. government has been providing money, weapons, intel assistance and other types of support through the CIA, directly to these groups that are working with and are affiliated with Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Tapper: So, you’re saying the CIA is giving money to groups in Syria, and those groups are working with Al-Nusra and ISIS.
Gabbard: There are—there have been numerous reports from The New York Times to The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets who have declared that these rebel groups have formed these battlefield alliances with Al Qaeda…essentially [it] is Al Qaeda groups [that] are in charge of every single rebel group on the ground fighting in Syria to overthrow the Syrian government.
Tapper: And the U.S. government says they vet the groups that they give money to very, very closely. And that you’re wrong, there are not alliances between groups that the American taxpayers fund and these other groups. Obviously, they all are fighting Assad.
Gabbard: I beg to differ. Evidence has shown time and time again that that is not the case, that we are both directly and indirectly supporting these groups who are allied with or partnered with Al Qaeda and ISIS, in working to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad. And we’ve also been providing that support through countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar to do that.
Obama’s alleged support for terrorism does not get the kind of attention that the media, led by The Washington Post and New York Times, lavish on anonymous charges from unnamed intelligence officials regarding Russia supposedly helping Trump during the 2016 campaign.
Obama’s CIA director John Brennan has said in the past that he will not sanction the waterboarding of terrorists to get information about their plans. “I will not agree to carry out some of these tactics and techniques I’ve heard bandied about because this institution needs to endure,” Brennan said. By institution, he means the CIA.
No wonder he won’t use controversial interrogation tactics on terrorists to prevent terrorist attacks. According to Gabbard, his CIA is arming the same terrorists for the specific purpose of carrying out terrorist attacks.
Perhaps the President-elect talked about this subject with Gabbard when she visited him at Trump Tower. Perhaps Trump wants to know what the CIA has been doing.
It appears that Rep. Gabbard is an independent and dissident voice in the Democratic Party who is willing to blow the whistle on a Democratic President whose pro-terrorist policies are resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Let’s face it: the media don’t care about Obama arming terrorists because he’s Obama and has to be allowed to get away with policies that would result in another president of another political party being impeached.
CNN would rather talk about Donald J. Trump, Jr. sitting in a meeting to discuss cabinet picks.
Never mind that the Obama policy, designed to force Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power, was an embarrassing failure, and that thousands of innocent civilians are paying the price in blood.
Our media will move on so that Obama’s benevolent legacy can be preserved.