12/28/16

Obama/Kerry: Diplomatic Terrorism on Israel

Israel was on the edge at least last October, they knew that Obama and Kerry had something in the pipeline against Israel. So it comes down to who wins the debate over Jerusalem? Should there even be a debate and Israel is fighting back on the never-ending use of the words ‘occupy’ and ‘settlement’s and should.

CBS

Bloomberg: When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was re-elected last year, the White House threatened to reconsider long-standing U.S. policy to veto U.N. Security Council resolutions on Israel’s presence in the West Bank. At issue was a last-minute interview in which Netanyahu said there would be no Palestinian state as long as he was prime minister. He took back that statement after the election. Nonetheless, the White House directed policymakers to draw up a set of options for how Obama could “preserve the two-state solution,” according to one U.S. official privy to the process.

So far, nothing has come of Obama’s threat. Indeed last month, Obama signed an agreement with Israel to extend the U.S. subsidy of its military for another ten years. In foreign policy, Obama is focused on the collapse of U.S. policy in Syria, which has become an even greater humanitarian emergency in the last month with the Russian and Iranian-led siege of Aleppo. Politically, the White House is working to elect Hillary Clinton as Obama’s successor.

Yet with a little more than three months left of his presidency, Israeli officials privately say they worry Obama intends to try to level the playing field between the Palestinians and Israelis before he leaves office. The threat of a last-minute speech, executive order, or U.N. action has stirred some of Israel’s friends in Washington. Last month, for example, 88 senators signed a letter to Obama urging him to restate “long-standing U.S. policy” to veto one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

The Obama administration has not made such a statement. This week, however, White House spokesman Joshua Earnest “strongly condemned” Israel’s approval of 98 new housing units in the West Bank settlement of Shilo. A CBS correspondent noted that this phrasing is “usually reserved” for terrorist attacks. More here.

****

So Israel put some assets into the system and worked to determine who, what and when such actions would happen. Since the UN vote, Israel says it has iron clad evidence of the United States complicity in the text for the vote.

****

Haaretz: he Egyptians distributed a Security Council resolution on the settlements last week, and demanded a vote within 24 hours, only to withdraw it after pressure from the prime minister’s bureau in Jerusalem and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.

Israel’s UN ambassador, Ron Dermer, said Monday that Israel had evidence that the Obama administration was behind the wording of the resolution and had cooperated with the Palestinians behind Israel’s back. The document published on the Egyptian new site might be the evidence Israel has. On December 22, the day the original Security Council vote was to have taken place, the Israeli news site Walla published a report almost identical to the one on the Egyptian news site. Walla quoted a senior Israeli official as stating that in a meeting between Kerry and a Palestinian delegation to Washington headed by Palestinian Liberation Organization Secretary General Saeb Erekat, agreement was reached on the matter of a resolution against the settlements, and that Kerry said the United States would not veto it. More here.

****

What else was Israel watching?

On December 23, 2016, the UN General Assembly approved spending $138,700 to create a “database” of all companies that conduct business – directly or indirectly – relating to Israeli “settlements” in Arab-claimed territories. The idea of a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) blacklist came from a March 2016 resolution of the UN Human Rights Council. According to UN documentation, the $138,700 will be used “to pay for one staff member to create the database over a period of 8 months and present a report” to the Human Rights Council in March 2017. In other words, the December authorization backdated approval of an expenditure for an operation already underway.

When the General Assembly’s Budget Committee met to approve the UN budget, Israel proposed to delete approval specifically for funding the blacklist.The Committee rejected the Israeli amendment 6 in favor (Australia, Canada, Guatemala Israel, Palau and the United States), 151 against, with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Central African Republic, Georgia, Honduras and Ghana).

After Israel lost the vote on funding the BDS item, it declared it was “disassociating” from the General Assembly’s subsequent approval of the UN budget as a whole. Despite the U.S. voting against funding the blacklist initially, it voted in favor of the UN budget, and made no mention of any problem funding BDS.

Date

December 23, 2016

Title

Fifth Committee Vote on Israeli Proposed Oral Amendment to Resolution on Programme Budget Appropriations for 2016-2017 Biennium, UN Meeting Coverage

Original Source

https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gaab4224.doc.htm

Attachment

Click here to view this document in MS Word/PDF format

Note

Israel’s oral amendment was rejected by a vote of 6 in favor (Australia, Canada, Guatemala Israel, Palau and the United States), 151 against, with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Central African Republic, Georgia, Honduras and Ghana)

****

So, here is Kerry on 12/28/2016 speaking while Obama is on vacation in Hawaii:

AP: Secretary of State John Kerry says that if Israel rejects a two-state solution for peace with the Palestinian people, “it can be Jewish or it can be democratic.”

Kerry was responding to withering Israeli criticism of the United States’ abstention from a vote condemning Israeli settlement construction. He reiterated the American position that a two-state solution giving both Israelis and Palestinians a home state is the best roadmap to peace. He also made it clear that despite recent differences in policy, the United States continues to be Israel’s closest ally.

Israel has been furious at the United States since the UN vote late last week. But Kerry said in a farewell speech at the State Department on Wednesday that the vote was “in keeping with” American values for democracy.

****

The full text of his speech is here, but while he ways that Israel has to be either Jewish or a democracy and not both, Kerry also suggests that Israel pay restitution to the Palestinians. In 2009, the United States gave Gaza $900 million, which is under the control of Abu Mazen.

12/28/16

Leaked Transcript Shows Obama Worked with Palestinians on Anti-Israel Resolution

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | Right Wing News

Last week, Obama and his jackals stabbed Israel in the back at the UN over the two-state solution. Bibi Netanyahu and other Israelis have come straight out and accused the Obama administration of being behind the UN resolution that took direct aim at Israel. And the proof of that duplicity is now coming out. John Kerry was actively striking a deal with the Palestinians according to transcripts coming out of Egypt. Obama, Kerry and Biden have all been caught red handed lying over this.

Congress started to move today to cut off funding to the UN until this resolution is reversed thanks to Ted Cruz. What the ruling tries to force is Israel handing over Christianity’s most holy sites to the Palestinians. They would have to forfeit Western Jerusalem to Islamists. Not going to happen. Meanwhile, Obama and others are calling the transcripts fabrications. I very much doubt that.

From the Jerusalem Post:

Prior to the UN Security Council vote on anti-Israeli settlement resolution 2334, US Secretary of State John Kerry met with a Palestinian delegation in early December in Washington to discuss the draft, agreeing to cooperate, according to transcripts released by Egyptian daily Al-Youm Al-Saba’a.

According to the report, Kerry along with US National Security Adviser Susan Rice, met with Secretary General of the PLO Executive Committee Saeb Erkat and Majed Faraj, head of the Palestinian Authority’s General Intelligence Service.

The reported transcripts reflect statements by numerous Israeli officials claiming that the resolution was orchestrated by the Obama administration. The source of the leaked transcripts was not named.

The United States on Friday broke with a longstanding approach of diplomatically shielding Israel and abstained on the United Nations Security Council resolution that passed with 14 countries in favor and none against.

“We have ironclad information that emanates from sources in the Arab world and that shows the Obama administration helped craft this resolution and pushed hard for its eventual passage,” said David Keyes, a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The US State Department has denied claims that the US was involved in perpetuating the resolution.

Meanwhile, Erekat has denied the claims written in the documents.

A defiant Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday defended the US decision allowing the United Nations to condemn Israeli settlements, while lashing out at the so-called “settler agenda” which he claimed is hurting prospects for peace – in a wide-ranging speech that inflamed tensions with Israel and drew a swift rebuke from the Bibi Netanyahu. Bibi was pissed and I don’t blame him. Kerry doubled down on the betrayal and justified it. Just reprehensible and treasonous. What do you expect from these people who brought the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House and crawled between the sheets with Jihadists?

In a written statement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ripped Kerry’s speech as “skewed.” That’s putting it mildly. “Like the Security Council resolution that Secretary Kerry advanced in the UN, his speech tonight was skewed against Israel,” he said. “For over an hour, Kerry obsessively dealt with settlements and barely touched upon the root of the conflict — Palestinian opposition to a Jewish state in any boundaries.” Bibi then slammed Kerry and Obama: “Israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace by foreign leaders.” Indeed, they don’t.

Trump is urging Israel to hold on for three more weeks until he comes into power. Netanyahu said he looks forward to working with the incoming Trump administration to “mitigate” the damage from the resolution and ultimately “repeal” it. Paul Ryan also had something to say about this monstrous move: “After allowing this anti-Israel resolution to pass the UN, Secretary Kerry has no credibility to speak on Israeli-Palestinian peace.”

Obama is deliberately sabotaging Israel and making Trump’s transition as difficult as possible. The White House hotly denied the report in the Egyptian media claiming Kerry and National Security Adviser Susan Rice discussed the UN resolution with a top Palestinian official nearly two weeks before Friday’s Security Council vote. Ned Price, spokesman for the US National Security Council, called the report a “fabrication” and said the “meeting never occurred.” Netanyahu reiterated that his government has “absolutely incontestable evidence” that the US organized and advanced the resolution. And he referred to the details reported in Egyptian media as the “tip of the iceberg.” The State Department’s own website reflects that Kerry was scheduled for a meeting with the Palestinian official at the State Department on Dec. 12th, around the time of the reported discussions. The official website, however, offers no details on what was discussed. Sucks to be caught with your hands in the Middle East cookie jar.

John Kerry stated Wednesday that if Israel chooses to remain a singular state with Palestine, “it cannot be both” Jewish and democratic. That’s simple then… they remain Jewish and tell the US to stuff it. In reality, it’s a false choice; a straw man argument. It’s a lie and the last wicked gasp of a failed legacy and presidency.

12/28/16

Red Russia, the Red Jihad and Israel Under Siege

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.

Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

12/28/16

The CIA-Media-Academia Axis

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

As controversy swirled around President-elect Donald J. Trump’s battle with the CIA concerning its questionable intelligence product on Russian hacking, a strong defense of the agency and an attack on Trump came from Joshua Rovner of Southern Methodist University (SMU). Professor Rovner declared in a press release, “By ignoring intelligence, Trump risks policy tunnel vision.”

But the idea that the CIA’s “intelligence” was sacrosanct was put in question when it was suggested that Obama’s CIA director John Brennan was orchestrating what Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called a “hit job” on Trump. King said, “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 committee…There should be an investigation of what the Russians did but also an investigation of John Brennan and the hit job he seems to be orchestrating against the president-elect.”

A press release sent to the media quoted the “expert” Rovner, the John Goodwin Tower Distinguished Chair of International Politics and National Security, as saying that Trump’s pick of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was “especially troubling” because of Flynn’s “extreme hostility towards the CIA—which he has called a political arm of the Obama administration…”

I was struck by the professor’s confidence in the CIA and wanted to question him about it. But he declined. “Dear Cliff,” he responded to my email request. “Unfortunately I’m not available. All the best, JR.” I asked if he would ever be available and that perhaps the particular day I offered for an exchange was not convenient. I never got an answer. No explanation was given for the refusal to be interviewed. But I suspect that he feared he would be questioned in a challenging manner and he realized his blind faith in the CIA would not hold up.

This is, unfortunately, what happens all too often at big universities, where professors are held up as “experts” on various subjects and offered to selected news organizations to back up pre-existing assumptions held by Big Media reporters. This is how professors get face time for the schools that employ them. The interviews are supposed to redound to the benefit of their universities.

Sometimes these appearances can backfire. Professor Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia runs a “Crystal Ball” political prediction service that said Hillary Clinton was going to crush Trump on Election Day. His erroneous prediction was also embarrassing to MSNBC, which had him on just before the election to talk about the drubbing Trump was going to receive. Oh well. Try, try again.

In the case of SMU, the school has an uplink facility located on campus for live TV, radio or online interviews. But Rovner was unavailable to support the view that the CIA was right and Trump was wrong. I can only surmise that he had visited the AIM website and determined we were not going to toss him softballs.

Both The Washington Post and The New York Times have waged war on Trump and Flynn over their lack of confidence in the CIA. Professors like Rovner constitute back-up for the media in this war.

But why would the professor be so critical of Trump and Flynn?

It turns out that Rovner signed an ad in The New York Times in 2015 that argues that the Obama administration’s agreement with Iran on its nuclear program “furthers American interests.” Rovner was one of a group of “national security scholars” from several prestigious universities who endorsed the deal.

Meanwhile, Trump and Flynn opposed the Iran nuclear deal.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) also opposed the deal, saying, “Iran has killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers, tried to conduct a terrorist attack in the United States, and is committed to annihilating Israel. This deal will guarantee Iran the capability to carry out its clear intent.”

The aforementioned attack in the United States is a reference to an attempted assassination of a Saudi official, Adel Al-Jubeir, while dining at Cafe Milano in Georgetown in Washington, D.C. in 2011. The plot was confirmed by officials of the Obama administration and Obama himself.

General James N. Mattis, nominated to be Trump’s Secretary of Defense, commented, “We caught them [Iran] in the act and yet we let them walk free.”

House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-CA), who is Trump’s nominee to head the CIA, opposed the Iran agreement, calling it appeasement and surrender.

The Rovner-signed ad endorsing the Iran deal, published in 2015, said, “We recognize that the regime in Tehran is repressive and pursues dangerous policies, but the nuclear deal does not prevent us from countering them.”

The ad said nothing about the plot to bomb the Georgetown café, which could have killed dozens, if not hundreds, of Americans.

Not surprisingly, CIA Director Brennan has urged Trump not to scrap the Iran agreement. “I think it would be the height of folly if the next administration were to tear up that agreement,” he told the BBC.

Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

12/28/16

Communists really do want white genocide

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Self-identified communist professor claims controversial tweet was ‘satire.’

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.” – Noel Ignatiev, Communist and father of “White Privilege”

“White supremacy makes it so that white people can’t see the world they have created.” – Lee Bebout of Arizona State University, teaches course “U.S. Race Theory & the Problem of Whiteness”

“White Genocide” was trending on Twitter yesterday after self-identified communist professor George Ciccariello-Maher of Drexel University in Philadelphia tweeted, “All I want for Christmas is White Genocide.” But what most of the media has missed is the direct correlation between Ciccariello’s anti-white sentiment and his communist ideology.

The academically-promoted concepts of “White Privilege” and “Critical Race Theory” can be traced back to anti-white Marxists who have successfully influenced a generation of students that white people are racist oppressors.

Consider that hard-core communist Noel Ignatiev (formerly Ignatin) is the father of the concept of “white privilege,” and has been open about his desire for the abolishment of white people.

A must-read article about the communist roots of the Black Lives Matter movement by James Simpson at the Capital Research Center explains:

“The ‘White Skin Privilege’ idea was created in 1967 by Noel Ignatiev, an acolyte of Derrick Bell and professor at Harvard’s W.E.B. Du Bois Institute. (Du Bois was a black leader who helped found the NAACP and joined the Communist Party in 1961.) Ignatiev was a member of the Communist Party USA’s most radical wing, the Provisional Organizing Committee to Reconstitute the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party from 1958–66. The Provisional Organizing Committee was the intellectual forerunner to Freedom Road.”

The Freedom Road Socialist Organization was behind the Black Lives Matter movement.

Read more here…