Archive for June 9, 2016

WH Denies Endorsement Will Intimidate FBI Investigators

June 9, 2016

WH Denies Endorsement Will Intimidate FBI Investigators via YouTube, June 9, 2016

This is why Donald Trump deserves to be president!

June 9, 2016

This is why Donald Trump deserves to be president! – MUST SEE COMPILATION!

John Patrick Acquaviva

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuiW_Jagl4U

Published on Apr 20, 2016

The american people need to realize that Donald J. Trump is our last hope, he is the only person who is capable of saving america, and the western world as a whole from falling into the depths of despair due to globalist agendas and a crippling political correctness era.

These clips show Donald Trump from all the way back to 1986 up until present day and they do a fantastic job at demonstrating the kind of person Donald Trump is, and why he deserves to be the next president.

Time stamps to each segment:
—————————————-­­————–
* 1980 Rona Barrett Interview 00:10
* 1987 Oprah Interview 00:47
* 1988 GOP Convention 01:58
* 1989 Interview 02:55
* 1991 C-Span Interview 04:59
* 1999 Press Interview 06:05
* 2004 CNN Interview 06:27
* 2007 Larry King Live 07:00
* 2011 Steve Forbes Interview 07:27
* 2012 CNN Comments on Romney 09:08
* 2012 CNBC Interview on Economy 09:22
* 2014 Speaking at CPAC 11:18
* 2015 Press Event 14:17

Hamas incitement continues: There will be more terror attacks

June 9, 2016

Hamas incitement continues: There will be more terror attacks A day after the deadly terror attack in Tel Aviv, the Hamas terror organization published a propaganda video calling on their people to shoot Jews in order to achieve liberation.

Jun 9, 2016, 5:55PM

Rachel Avraham

Source: Hamas incitement continues: There will be more terror attacks | JerusalemOnline

 

After the difficult terror attack last night in Tel Aviv, where 4 Israelis were murdered by 2 Palestinian terrorists, the Palestinian incitement continues.

The Hamas terror organization published a video clip today in Gaza calling upon their members to implement terror attacks against Jews: “When an owner has the right to open up an intifada, the fire bursts from his land. His rifle bullets sing barrages of fire and all of the firing are steps on the way to liberation.”

U.S. Taxpayers are Funding Iran’s Military

June 9, 2016

U.S. Taxpayers are Funding Iran’s Military, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, June 9, 2016

Eli Lake uncovers the latest Iran scandal:

One of the unexpected results of President Barack Obama’s new opening to Iran is that U.S. taxpayers are now funding both sides of the Middle East’s arms race. The U.S. is deliberately subsidizing defense spending for allies like Egypt and Israel. Now the U.S. is inadvertently paying for some of Iran’s military expenditures as well.

It all starts with $1.7 billion the U.S. Treasury wired to Iran’s Central Bank in January….

For months it was unclear what Iran’s government would do with this money. But last month the mystery was solved when Iran’s Guardian Council approved the government’s 2017 budget that instructed Iran’s Central Bank to transfer the $1.7 billion to the military.

Saeed Ghasseminejad, an associate fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, spotted the budget item. He told me the development was widely reported in Iran by numerous sources including the state-funded news services.

It is important to note that this is above and beyond the $100 billion (or whatever the number turns out to be) that Iran has received or will receive in unfrozen assets. These are US taxpayer dollars:

Republicans and some Democrats who opposed Obama’s nuclear deal have argued that the end of some sanctions would help to fund Iran’s military. But at least that was Iran’s money already (albeit frozen in overseas bank accounts). The $1.7 billion that Treasury transferred to Iran in January is different.

A portion of it, $400 million, came from a trust fund comprising money paid by the government of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a U.S. ally, for arms sold to Iran before the 1979 revolution. Those sales were cut off in 1979 after revolutionaries took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held the American staff hostage for 444 days. The remaining $1.3 billion represents interest on the $400 million principle over more than 36 years.
***
According to a letter from the State Department to Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican who has called for an investigation into the January payment, that money came out of something known as the Judgment Fund, which is “a source of funding to pay judgments and claims against the United States when there is no other source of funding.”

The rationale for payment of this $1.7 billion to Iran is unclear, but the timing suggests that it was paid in exchange for release of American prisoners:

In January, many observers, including Pompeo, said the transfer was more like a ransom payment because it coincided with the release of five Americans detained in Iran. The Iranian commander of the Basiji militia, Mohammad Reza Naghdi, said at the time: “Taking this much money back was in return for the release of the American spies.” The White House disputed this claim and said the payment was independent of the negotiation to release the American prisoners.

As usual, Iran’s government is more credible than our own.

One more thing I hadn’t realized: in the wake of the nuclear deal with the Obama administration, Iran has nearly doubled its military budget.

Iran’s 2017 $19 billion defense budget has increased by 90 percent from 2016, according to Ghasseminejad.

We now know where $1.7 billion of that came from.

The mullahs don’t think their number one security issue is global warming, so we can assume that our $1.7 billion, along with the unfrozen assets, will be spent effectively to undermine the interests of the U.S. and its allies.

Top Dem Recognizes Christian ISIS Genocide, Won’t Take Christian Refugees

June 9, 2016

Top Dem Recognizes Christian ISIS Genocide, Won’t Take Christian Refugees, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield

Muslim privilege

The Democrats are championing the entry of huge numbers of Muslim refugees. Yet they continue to show no regard for the Christian refugees who unlike Muslims are actual refugees targeted for genocide and with no local countries of their own.

This is another example of the same double standard.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who voted for a resolution recognizing that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is committing genocide against Christians in Syria, said he did not think Syrians should be given refugee status based on their religion.

At press briefing on Capitol Hill, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Hoyer: “You voted for the resolution stating ISIL is committing genocide against Christians in Syria. Yet, of the more than 1,000 refugees the U.S. admitted from Syria in May, only 2 were Christian and the rest were Muslims. What specifically are you proposing to help Christians seeking to escape ISIL’s genocide?”

Hoyer answered: “Well, I don’t think the criteria ought to be on religion, contrary to Mr. Trump. Criteria ought to be on their–first of all, I think we need to take more people who are fleeing for their safety–the safety of themselves and their families and we ought to apply fair criteria. Certainly not based upon religion.”

But those most in danger are Christians. And in fact we already recognize religion as a basis for refugee status. This isn’t something Trump invented. People facing religious persecution apply for asylum all the time. The problem is that Obama and his cohorts insist on taking a vast majority of Muslim migrants over Christian refugees. And Hoyer is pretending that there is no such thing as religious asylum.

One Ohio Mosque Has Been at the Center of SIX Terror Cases

June 9, 2016

One Ohio Mosque Has Been at the Center of SIX Terror Cases, PJ Media, Patrick Poole, June 8, 2016

Ohio Mosque

The website for Masjid Omar Ibn El Khattab, just a mile from the Ohio State University campus, proclaims itself “the Muslim Heart of Columbus.” And yet the mosque, described as one of the most ideologically hardline in the city, has grabbed the media spotlight once again: former attendees were recently reported as having joined the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria.

As mosque officials struggle to distance themselves from yet another resident terror cell, the recent news raises questions about the extensive history of this Ohio mosque as a turnstile for terrorism.

Just a few weeks ago, I reported here at PJ Media that three individuals who lived just yards from Masjid Omar for two years joined ISIS in Syria in July 2014. Rasel Raihan was killed in Syria in a U.S. airstrike. His older sister Zakia Nasrin and her husband Jaffrey Khan are still in Raqqa, according to internal ISIS documents which NBC News obtained from an ISIS defector.

In that NBC News report, the mosque’s president, Basil Gohar, tried to distance the trio from the mosque. He said that Jaffrey, despite living so close to the mosque for two years, had only attended the mosque for a few weeks and had kept to himself.

When a local TV station caught up with him a few days later, Gohar again tried to distance the mosque from the ISIS recruits — as well as from the previous convicted terrorists who had attended the mosque:

We share the shock and horror of these actions, and we wish that we could have found out or stopped them … It’s quite unfortunate what these people went and did, but the fact they attended has no bearing on their actions. Anyone can come to our mosque. We have an open door policy. It’s not possible for us to screen someone’s ideology.

Gohar’s claims about these individuals — and particularly his claims about the prior al-Qaeda cell that was centered around the mosque — are flatly dishonest.

When one of the previous Columbus al-Qaeda cell members, Christopher Paul, pleaded guilty to conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction against Americans, Basil Gohar publicly rose to the defense of the longtime al-Qaeda operative and his associates. He defended their innocence and prayed that their imprisonment elevated their place in paradise.

When Paul was arrested in April 2007, the Justice Department noted — in press statements and in federal court filings — that the al-Qaeda operative was conducting training INSIDE THE MOSQUE:

Specifically, the indictment alleges that, in approximately 1990 and 1991, Paul traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan and received military-training at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. In approximately mid-1991, Paul allegedly joined al Qaeda and stayed at a guest house exclusively for al Qaeda members. Afterwards, he returned to the U.S. and taught martial arts at a mosque in Columbus. Over the next several years, he allegedly provided money and equipment from the U.S. to individuals overseas as part of the conspiracy. He also allegedly provided training to individuals in the U.S. in order that these individuals might be ready to fight violent jihad overseas.

So Masjid Omar president Basil Gohar has serious credibility issues when it comes to being forthcoming about his mosque’s ties to terrorism. Now, here’s a rundown of the known terrorist activity tied to Masjid Omar:

Columbus al-Qaeda Cell

One of the largest known al-Qaeda cells since 9/11, the conspiracy was centered around the mosque. While only three members — Iyman Faris, Nuradin Abdi, and Christopher Paul — were charged, it is known that there were more than a dozen members of the cell.

All three lived immediately near the mosque. Another cell member, Mehmet Aydinbelge, was deported from the U.S. in 2003 on national security grounds. Faris had met with Osama bin Laden and Khalid Shiekh Mohammed in his travels to his native Pakistan.

Abdi had traveled to Ethiopia to train at a terror camp there. And Christopher Paul, who had direct connections to European al-Qaeda operatives involved in the 9/11 terror attacks, was one of the oldest known American al-Qaeda operatives. Both Faris and Paul are still in federal prison. Abdi served his prison sentence, was stripped of his U.S. citizenship, and was deported in 2012. Abdi had helped establish a sister mosque to Masjid Omar in the Columbus area, Masjid Ibn Taymiyah.

Anwar al-Awlaki Funding Cell

Indictments in November 2015 charged four men — who previously lived in Columbus and attended Masjid Omar — with conspiring to send thousands of dollars to al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki between 2007 and 2009. Two of the men were arrested and the other two left the country. The men were formerly Ohio State students. Awlaki, the former imam of the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in the Washington D.C. area, was killed in a CIA drone strike in September 2011.

Little Rock Killer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (Carlos Bledsoe)

Bledsoe was convicted in Arkansas state court for the June 2009 murder of Army Pvt. Andy Long as he and another U.S. Army recruiter stood outside a Little Rock recruiting station. Bledsoe hadpreviously lived in Columbus, and as reported by ABC News at the time, he attended Masjid Omar during the 2006-2007 time frame.

Dr. Salah Soltan

Previously one of the top Islamic scholars in the U.S., Soltan is currently in prison under a death sentence on terrorism charges in Egypt. As I have reported extensively here at PJ Media andelsewhere, Soltan is a longtime figure in international terror circles.

From 2004 until his departure from the U.S. several years later, Soltan was a resident Islamic scholar for the Islamic Society of Greater Columbus (ISGC), the parent organization of Masjid Omar. For a time, Soltan maintained an office at the mosque. Here is video of Soltan in prison with his fellow Muslim Brotherhood officials in Egypt:

Wael Kalash

As Ohio State student Rachel Decker waited for a bus to take her to school on June 2, 2009 — the very day AFTER former Masjid Omar attendee Abdulhakim Muhammad killed Army Pvt. Andy Long in Little Rock — Decker was approached by Wael Kalash and stabbed in the stomach with a large knife.

As reported at the time, Kalash fled to Masjid Omar and was found by police at the mosque. Local media subsequently played up Kalash’s history of mental illness.

ISIS Recruits

As stated above, in July 2014 Jaffrey Khan, his wife Zakia Nasrin, and her younger brother Rasel Raihan entered Syria and joined ISIS. Masjid Omar president Basil Gohar has claimed that only Khan attended the mosque, and only for a few weeks. And yet the trio lived just yards from the mosque for two years. Further, as I reported here at PJ Media, they lived in the apartment next door to the wife of convicted al-Qaeda operative Christopher Paul.

Nasrin and Raihan grew up in a Columbus suburb and attended an advanced high school program. Khan grew up in a $2 million Silicon Valley mansion in Palo Alto, California, and moved to Columbus when his wife enrolled at Ohio State. Raihan was killed in a U.S. airstrike, while Khan and Nasrin still live in Syria with their ten-month-old baby daughter.

———

Masjid Omar is either very unlucky, or these half-dozen terror cases represent a pattern of ideological indoctrination and recruitment centered on this one Columbus mosque.

As I’ve previously reported here at PJ Media, whether it is Washington D.C., Phoenix, or Boston, there is an identifiable trend of domestic terrorism being centered around certain American mosques.

In my next installment concerning the terror cases centered around this Columbus, Ohio mosque, I’ll present evidence from an ongoing local federal terrorism trial that Masjid Omar president Basil Gohar may be more directly tied to some of these terror cases then he or his recent media appearances have let on.

Cartoon of the Day

June 9, 2016

H/t Townhall

Hillary first woman

Media Demands ‘No Matter Your Politics’ You Respect Clinton’s Historic Achievement | SUPERcuts! #330

June 9, 2016

Media Demands ‘No Matter Your Politics’ You Respect Clinton’s Historic Achievement | SUPERcuts! #330, Washington Free Beacon via YouTube, June 9, 2016

(Being a female is Hillary’s highest and only qualification. — DM)

Public Support for the European Union Plunges

June 9, 2016

Public Support for the European Union Plunges, Gatestone InstituteSoeren Kern, June 9, 2016

♦ Public anger is also being fueled by the growing number of diktats issued by the unelected officials running the Brussels-based European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the bloc, which has been relentless in its usurpation of sovereignty from the 28 nation states that comprise the European Union.

♦ Although the survey does not explicitly say so, the findings almost certainly reflect growing anger at the anti-democratic nature of the EU and its never-ending power grabs.

♦ On May 31, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online. Critics say the EU’s definition of “hate speech” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or  even the EU itself.

♦ On April 20, the European Political Strategy Centre, an in-house EU think tank that reports directly to Juncker, proposed that the European Union establish its own central intelligence agency, which would answer only to unelected bureaucrats.

Public opposition to the European Union is growing in all key member states, according to a new survey of voters in ten EU countries.

Public disaffection with the EU is being fueled by the bloc’s mishandling of the refugee and debt crises, according to the survey, which interviewed voters in Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden.

Public anger is also being fueled by the growing number of diktats issued by the unelected officials running the Brussels-based European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the bloc, which has been relentless in its usurpation of sovereignty from the 28 nation states that comprise the European Union.

The 17-page report, “Euroskepticism Beyond Brexit,” was published by the Pew Research Center on June 7, just two weeks before the June 23 referendum on whether Britain will become the first country to leave the European Union (Brexit blends the words Britain and exit).

The following are excerpts:

  • Much of the disaffection with the EU among Europeans can be attributed to Brussels’ handling of the refugee issue. In every country surveyed, overwhelming majorities disapprove of how Brussels has dealt with the crisis. This includes 94% of Greeks, 88% of Swedes and 77% of Italians. In Hungary and Poland, disapproval of how the refugee crisis has been managed stands at 72% and 71%, respectively. In France, 70% disapprove; in Germany the figure is 67%. The strongest approval of EU management of the refugee crisis is in the Netherlands, but that backing is a tepid 31%.
  • The EU’s handling of economic issues is another huge source of disaffection with Brussels. About nine-in-ten Greeks (92%) disapprove of how the EU has dealt with the ongoing economic crisis. Roughly two-thirds of the Italians (68%), French (66%) and Spanish (65%) similarly disapprove. (France and Spain are the two nations where the favorability of the EU has recently experienced the largest decline.) Majorities in Sweden (59%) and the UK (55%) also disapprove of the EU’s job in dealing with economic challenges. The strongest approval of Brussels’ economic efforts is in Poland and Germany (both 47%).
  • Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Britons say they want the EU to return certain powers to national governments. This Euroskepticism is not limited to Britain. In Greece, 68% of those surveyed want some EU powers devolved to the national government, followed by Sweden (47%); the Netherlands (44%) and Germany (43%).
  • A median of 42% of Europeans across the ten countries surveyed say they want to reclaim some powers from Brussels, while just 19% favor greater centralization (27% prefer the status quo).
  • Conversely, there is little enthusiasm for transferring more power to Brussels. Only 6% of Britons, 8% of Greeks and 13% of Swedes favor more power for the EU. The strongest backing for an ever closer Europe is only 34%, in France. In most countries, a quarter or more of the public prefers to keep the current division of power.
  • Three-quarters of Britons who disapprove of the EU’s handling of economic problems and 71% of those who have an unfavorable view of the bloc’s handling of the refugee crisis believe that Brussels should return powers to national governments.
  • The strongest backers of the EU are the Poles (72%) and the Hungarians (61%). In many other nations, support is tepid. Just 27% of the Greeks, 38% of the French (down from 69% in 2004) and 47% of the Spanish (down from 80% in 2007) have a favorable opinion of the EU. Notably, 44% of the British view the EU favorably, including 53% of the Scottish.
  • EU favorability is down in five of the six nations surveyed in both 2015 and 2016. There has been a double-digit drop in France (down 17 percentage points) and Spain (16 points), and single-digit declines in Germany (8 points), the United Kingdom (7 points) and Italy (6 points).
  • Young people — those ages 18 to 34 — are more favorable toward the European Union than people 50 and older in six of the 10 nations surveyed. The generation gap is most pronounced in France — 25 percentage points — with 56% of young people but only 31% of older people having a positive opinion of the EU. There are similar generation gaps of 19 points in the UK, 16 points in the Netherlands, 14 points in Poland and Germany, and 13 points in Greece. It remains unclear why young Europeans are so favorable to the EU, where youth unemployment is near 50% in some EU countries.
  • There is overwhelming sentiment across Europe that Brexit would be a bad thing for the European Union: 89% in Sweden, 75% in the Netherlands and 74% in Germany say the British leaving would not be good for the EU. France is the only country where more than a quarter (32%) of the public says it would be positive for the EU if the UK departed.

Although the survey does not explicitly say so, the findings almost certainly reflect growing anger at the anti-democratic nature of the EU and its never-ending power grabs.

On May 31, the European Union, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft,unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. Critics say the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe because the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

On May 24, the unelected president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, vowed to use sanctions to isolate far-right or populist governments that are swept into office on the wave of popular anger against migration. Under powers granted to the European Commission in 2014, Juncker can trigger a “rule of law alert” for countries that depart from “the common constitutional traditions of all member states.” Rather than accepting the will of the people at the voting booth, Juncker can impose sanctions to address “systemic deficiencies” in EU member states.

On May 4, Juncker warned that EU countries that failed to “show solidarity” by refusing take in migrants would face a fine of €250,000 ($285,000) per migrant.

On April 20, the European Political Strategy Centre, an in-house EU think tank that reports directly to Juncker, proposed that the European Union establish its own central intelligence agency, which would answer only to unelected bureaucrats. According to the plan, the 28 EU member states would have a “legally binding duty to share information.”

The British Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Penny Mordaunt, responded:

“These matters are supposed to be, and must be the competence of member states. Intelligence sharing can only be done on a bilateral basis. This latest EU integration project not only shows how little the EU cares for the sovereignty of nation states, but also how little it understands the business of counter-terrorism.”

On December 15, 2015, the European Commission unveiled plans for a new European Border and Coast Guard force that can intervene anywhere in the EU, even without the host country’s consent.

On March 8, 2015, Juncker said that the EU needed its own military in order to restore the bloc’s standing around the world: “Europe’s image has suffered dramatically and also in terms of foreign policy, we don’t seem to be taken entirely seriously.”

1642Jean-Claude Juncker, the unelected president of the European Commission, recently vowed to use sanctions to isolate far-right or populist governments that are swept into office on the wave of popular anger against migration. In December 2015, the Commission unveiled plans for a new European Border and Coast Guard force that can intervene anywhere in the EU, even without the host country’s consent. (Image source: © European Union 2015 – European Parliament)

In a recent interview with Le Monde, Juncker said that if Britons voted to leave the EU, they would be treated as “deserters”:

“I am sure the deserters will not be welcomed with open arms. If the British should say ‘No’ — which I hope they do not — then life in the EU will not go on as before. The United Kingdom will be regarded as a third country and will have its fur stroked the wrong way (caresser dans le sens du poil). If the British leave Europe, people will have to face the consequences. It is not a threat but our relations will no longer be what they are today.”

In an interview with the Telegraph, Giles Merritt, director of the Friends of Europe think tank in Brussels, summed it up this way:

“The EU policy elites are in panic. If the British vote to leave the shock will be so ghastly that they will finally wake up and realize that they can no longer ignore demands for democratic reform. They may have to dissolve the EU as it is and try to reinvent it, both in order to bring the Brits back and because they fear that the whole political order will be swept away unless they do.”

Op-Ed: Netanyahu may be blackmailed into peace negotiations

June 9, 2016

Op-Ed: Netanyahu may be blackmailed into peace negotiations

Jun 9, 2016, 7:00AM

Source: Op-Ed: Netanyahu may be blackmailed into peace negotiations | JerusalemOnline

Photo Credit: Channel 2 News

There is something fishy about the coincidence of the Mimran scandal breaking during the French summit, followed by ongoing revelations during Netanyahu’s Moscow meetings with Putin, during which it was reported he accepted the Saudi Peace Initiative. Has Netanyahu’s alleged corruption put him in a position of receiving an offer he cannot refuse?

Coincidence does occasionally happen in politics and diplomacy, but on the whole, it’s regarded by practitioners of these arts as something akin to reports of UFO sightings, in that both, although possible and sometimes seemingly plausible, are not very probable, and as such should be regarded with a healthy dose of skepticism.

The current package of coincidences regarding the proximity of timelines between the French summit, Netanyahu’s Moscow trip and the breaking of “Mimrangate” is no exception.

According to a retired senior Western intelligence official, still very much in the know, none of the above is coincidental.

In an exclusive interview with Jerusalem Online, the official said that France, in coordination with other players, is sending Netanyahu a message. “They are telling him in no mean terms that the French authorities have proof of a corrupt relationship between him and Mimran and that the decision whether to hand over documents and other evidence to the relevant Israeli authorities is up to them”.

“French law enforcement authorities have already reached an understanding with Arnaud Mimran”, he said. “In return for leniency, and possibly even a future Presidential pardon, he has spilled the beans and given French authorities a full and detailed picture of all the monies and presents he has given Netanyahu over the years”. “The purpose of last week’s trip to Israel by French Premier Manuel Valls was to give Netanyahu a heads up as to what he could expect if he continued his current policies”. “Netanayhu through he could call their bluff, and politely told Valls to get lost”. This resulted in the affair breaking during the Paris summit, the diplomatic equivalent of a warning shot across the bow.

Immediately afterwards Netanyahu was invited for an unplanned meeting with Putin. During this meeting, the Russians, unusually for them, held a western style press conference during which Netanayhu found himself peppered by questions about Mimrangate.

The climax of the summit was the statement by Russian foreign Minister Levrov that Netanayhu had agreed to accept the Arab Peace Initiative as a basis for negotiations, without demanding prior changes. “This was stage two of the offer that cannot be refused”, said the former official. “In order to avoid making it obvious what France was up to, it was agreed upon by France, the US (that’s why Kerry was there) and Russia that stage two would take place in Moscow”. This is what we witnessed earlier today (Wednesday 8th of June) when Levrov released his bombshell of a statement, catching Netanyahu off guard.

This means that the US, France and Russian (and the UK and Germany as well) are acting in close cooperation, in order to force Netanayhu to either play ball of find himself out of office.

It is no secret that there isn’t a Western leader who doesn’t want to see Netanyahu depart the PM’s office ASAP. Obama in particular is believed to have decided to leave no stone unturned in an effort to see Netanyahu move out of the PM’s to his Caesarea mansion before he and Michelle leave the White House for their recently purchased mansion in Chicago.

It seems that Netanyahu’s addiction to ‘la dolce vita”, funded by a penchant for financial shenanigans and dodgy ethics has finally caught up with him, providing the international community with the rope and tree it has long been looking for.

There is no evidence of any sort that this case has in any way been fabricated. The French have been investigating Mimran for some time. The official did not deny the possibility that France had received some of the evidence it needed to crack the case from the NSA. We know, thanks to Edward Snowden, that the NSA and the GCHQ, its British equivalent, had cooperated in intercepting and decrypting top-secret Israeli communications, which had enabled them to electronically spy on Netanyahu for several years.

If Netanyahu hadn’t become so bent, he would not be in a position where he is extremely vulnerable to pressure to make strategic decisions based not on what he believes is in the county’s interest, but to avoid indictment, disgrace and prison.

Even Israelis who vehemently disagree with Netanyahu’s policies (present company included) cannot and should not be thrilled by the fact that their PM is very likely about to make crucial decisions regarding the country’s future under such dubious circumstances.

Israeli society unfortunately is reaping what it has sowed. For too long it has been willing to tolerate Prime Ministerial monkey business, deluding itself into believing that it would never affect decision making when it came to national security issues. This time it seems Israel will not be able to dodge this bullet.

Even if Netanyahu does the only honorable thing and resigns, Israel may not be out of the woods. Is it a coincidence that Lieberman assumed the Defense ministry a week before this broke? Given Russia’s involvement, it seems unlikely. Lieberman has long standing relationships with Putin and other leading Russian politicians and government sanctioned tycoons. To this day, some senior Israeli officials harbor suspicions that he is, or at least was a Russian mole. Several years a former Defense Minister suggested to the ISA (Shin Bet), they investigate this possibility. It was subsequently decided that such an investigation might not be in the national interest, and that even if it was true, he was more useful in politics than in a cell. Of course, no one ever suspected that he would one day be the country’s Defense Minister. This leads to one more question that must be asked. Is it possible that one of the reasons Russia is cooperating with France is the opportunity this opens to see Lieberman become Prime Minister?