Archive for December 24, 2016

Why Obama Has Hurt the Palestinian People Far More Than Israel

December 24, 2016

Why Obama Has Hurt the Palestinian People Far More Than Israel, PJ MediaRoger L. Simon, December 24, 2016

unuseless

By allowing and indeed instigating – it was apparently entirely his decision – the United States to “abstain” from the UN Security Council’s censure of Israel on the settler issue Barack Obama has certainly hurt Israel, but he has hurt the Palestinian people far more.

Obama’s action was entirely one of moral narcissism, coming as it did from his longtime pseudo-leftist distaste for Israel (see the Khalidi Tape) augmented by personal pique at its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, leavened by self-regarding, actually quite destructive, virtue signaling. Obama’s unresolved anger about Donald Trump’s victory was undoubtedly also part of the mix.

The destructive aspect is the most significant in the long run, though it’s questionable whether the lame duck president sees it or even cares.  Obama has encouraged Palestinian irredentism.  He has given their leaders and the misbegotten Palestinian people a propaganda victory they don’t need that misleads them into thinking they have been following the right path.

Over the more than two decades since the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians have been given several chances at a two-state solution and have rejected all of them.  In all those cases over ninety percent of what they asked for was on the table.  In the instance of Ehud Barak and Arafat, some say it was a hundred percent. Arafat famously walked away – to Bill Clinton’s great, and in this case justifiable, chagrin.

Something wrong?  Of course.  Maybe the Palestinians, at least their leaders, didn’t and don’t really want a two-state solution. Those leaders have been on a gravy train, in many instances having become billionaires via international aid during the negotiations. They have had less than zero incentive to make a deal, especially since they suspected their more bloodthirsty brothers and sisters would kill them if they did.  (A recent investigation shows that Arafat may actually have been poisoned by a competing Palestinian leader.  We all know what happened to Gaza after the Israelis left voluntarily, when Hamas turned what was supposed to be the next Singapore into a free-fire zone.)

Meanwhile, the Palestinian people have been ginned up by those leaders – and jihadists world wide – to hate the Jewish people and dream of the Jewish state being pushed into the sea. Interesting in all this is the supposedly terminal settler issue. Palestinian Authority president  Abu Abbas has declared that no Jews would be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state, while a million and a half Arabs already live in Israel.  Is that, as Obama would say, “fair”? Since 1948, the entire Islamic world has virtually achieved Hitler’s goal of being Judenrein.

Nevertheless, the destruction of Israel is less likely than ever to occur, yet Obama decided to give at least tacit encouragement to that tired dream and give the Palestinians a false victory through his last minute chastisement of Israel.  He did this in full knowledge that Donald Trump would take an opposite position within weeks. Obama’s action was basically a “grandstand play,” but not a harmless one because it undermined what Trump and his people may ultimately be trying to do more quietly.  The Palestinians need nothing more than”tough love,” solid inducement to look at their situation realistically rather than through the highly-neurotic, always self-destructive lens of victimhood.

It’s no surprise that Trump is now calling for reduced US financial support for the UN.  Did Obama want that?  Did he really care about that either or was that all too just for show?

So Obama moves off stage as he has always been – the Moral Narcissist in Chief.  His entire presidency has been about him, and on a global stage.  And they say Trump is the narcissist.

The Free-Speech Muslims

December 24, 2016

The Free-Speech Muslims, City JournalKaren Lugo, December 23, 2016

Muslim-American reformers have risked much and are targets of both leftists and Islamists. Recently, the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled Jasser, a Phoenix-based cardiologist, “anti-Muslim.” It has called Ali an “extremist.” In fact, both are brave and eloquent defenders of liberty, freedom of conscience, unfettered speech, and individual rights. Trump would be wise to invite them into his administration, and consider their counsel.

**************************

Who speaks for Muslim Americans? The media have long offered a megaphone to grievance groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Contrarian, Western-oriented Muslims are rarely heard from. With the election of Donald Trump, however, their voices are growing louder. Some are political conservatives in the American sense. Others simply embrace the separation of secular and religious life. Both are fed up with the monolithic, condescending presentation of Muslims as victims.

Trump’s election has opened a new space for such Muslim Americans to express themselves politically. Oppressive sharia codes are as much a threat to these reformers as they are to unprotected American traditions. The new crop of Muslim reformers seek express delineation between Islam as a religious belief system and Islamism as a socio-political regime. They understand the vital need for open and uncensored public debate. They realize that this discussion may determine whether America avoids the fate of Europe, which chose multiculturalism over assimilation and is paying a heavy price.

Former Wall Street Journal reporter Asra Nomani penned a recent op-ed in theWashington Post announcing herself as a Muslim, an immigrant, and a Trump voter. She has also warned Americans that campaigns like “wear a hijab day”—ostensibly meant as demonstrations of solidarity with Muslim women—are misguided. “‘Hijab’ literally means ‘curtain’ in Arabic. It also means ‘hiding,’ ‘obstructing’ and ‘isolating’ someone or something,” she wrote. “It is never used in the Koran to mean headscarf.” Nomani says she “doesn’t buy” the Islamic fundamentalist meme that men are weak, and can’t withstand the temptation of seeing a woman’s hair. Nomani explains that such ideologies “absolve men of sexually harassing women and put the onus on the victim to protect herself by covering up.”

In 2015, more than a dozen Muslim dissidents—including Nomani, Zuhdi Jasser, Raheel Raza, and Tawfik Hamid—announced the formation of the Muslim Reform Movement. “We are in a battle for the soul of Islam, and an Islamic renewal must defeat the ideology of Islamism, or politicized Islam, which seeks to create Islamic states, as well as an Islamic caliphate,” the group said in a manifesto demanding freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, and separation of mosque and state. This declaration provides a philosophical basis for Muslim believers to interpret Islam in a societally constructive fashion. Physician Qanta Ahmed has suggested that President-elect Trump build an advisory team of insightful Muslim leaders to shape a national effort to “unveil Islamism.” Ahmed, author of In the Land of Invisible Women: A Female Doctor’s Journey in the Saudi Kingdom, wants to assist in creating the framework to “disable Islamism through frank speech.” In appearances on PBS and CNN, she has called Islamism a destructive force that aims to subjugate all Muslims. She was critical of President Obama’s reluctance to name the Islamists threat and she welcomes the “serious, fresh opportunity to defeat Islamism” that Trump may represent.

Shireen Qudosi’s blog bills itself “The Voice of Muslim Reformers.” A longtime California Republican, Qudosi is an eloquent defender of American constitutional standards and a vivacious feminist. Tawfik Hamid is a reformed Islamist radical who now declares that he is a “Muslim by birth . . . Christian by the spirit . . . and a Jew by heart.” Obama has called Islamic radicalism a “perversion” of Islam, but Hamid warns that Islamic violence is indeed rooted in religious ideology. He stresses the need for clear distinctions that isolate radical influences. Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali is no longer a Muslim. Born in Somalia, she rejected Islam in favor of Enlightenment ideals when she fled to the Netherlands in 1992. Recognizing that Islam is at a crossroads, Ali has called for “leadership from the dissidents” and emphasized that the reformers “stand no chance without support from the West.”

Muslim-American reformers have risked much and are targets of both leftists and Islamists. Recently, the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled Jasser, a Phoenix-based cardiologist, “anti-Muslim.” It has called Ali an “extremist.” In fact, both are brave and eloquent defenders of liberty, freedom of conscience, unfettered speech, and individual rights. Trump would be wise to invite them into his administration, and consider their counsel.

Five Ways Trump Could Avenge the Anti-Israel UN Vote

December 24, 2016

Five Ways Trump Could Avenge the Anti-Israel UN Vote, BreitbartJoel B. Pollak, December 23, 2016

trump-israel-640x480SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty

President-elect Donald J. Trump hinted on Friday, via Twitter, that “things will be different after Jan. 20” at the United Nations.

He was reacting to President Barack Obama’s decision to betray Israel and to allow an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council to pass. The resolution regards all Israeli settlement — including East Jerusalem, the Old City, and Hebron — as illegal. It was a sneak attack by lame-duck Obama. Here is what Trump may have in mind as a response.

1. Signing a congressional declaration that the UN Security Council resolution is not United States policy. Congress could quickly pass, and President Trump would sign, a declaration that the previous administration had no mandate to allow the UN Security Council resolution to pass. The declaration could affirm prior U.S. policy that some areas in the West Bank will always be under Israeli control — or it could even leave the status of the West Bank open to potential Israeli annexation.

2. Immediately move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. The Trump transition team has been hinting that moving the U.S. embassy would be a high priority. Now there is absolutely no reason to delay. The entire case against moving the embassy had been that the U.S. should not take unilateral action outside negotiations between the two parties. But Obama just undermined his own argument by unilaterally taking the Palestinians’ side over settlements. Moving the embassy is now a no-brainer.

3. Cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority. President Obama kept U.S. taxpayer dollars flowing to the Palestinians even though the Palestinian Authority has continued to support terrorists and incite hatred against Israelis and Jews. By pushing for unilateral measures at the UN, the Palestinian leadership has also thrown away the bilateral premise of whatever remained of the peace process. They have never faced consequences for their hostility to peace. They should face them now.

4. Defund the United Nations, in whole or in part. The UN is dependent on American taxpayers for some 22% of its general budget. International diplomats, bureaucrats and miscreants live the high live in Manhattan and elsewhere while passing resolutions and running programs directly contrary to the interests of the United States. The Trump administration and Speaker Paul Ryan will find plenty of fat to cut — and could target funding that would support Friday’s awful resolution.

5. Announce a presidential visit to Israel. Trump should visit Israel — and include the Old City, and even Hebron, to show that the new administration regards Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal, undivided capital; and that the religious rights of all people to access holy sites in the West Bank must be undisturbed under any dispensation. After Obama’s perfidy, Trump would be greeted as a hero throughout the country.

Ironically, from this dark moment in U.S.-Israel relations, a new light may shine.

UNSC resolution promotes Mid East war

December 24, 2016

UNSC resolution promotes Mid East war, DEBKAfile, December 24, 2016

obama_bibi2480-1

The United States did not abandon Israel by its abstention from vetoing the UN Security Council resolution condemning settlements that was passed Friday, Dec. 23, 2016.

The one who abandoned Israel was US President Barack Obama – and not for the first time. During his eight years in office, Obama let Israel down at least three times on issues that jeopardized its security:

One of the first consequences of his 2011 “Arab Spring” initiative was the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak as Egyptian president and his direct promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of power in Cairo.

Four years later, Obama turned his back on Israel to award Iran favored status. Iran was allowed to retain the infrastructure of its military nuclear program as well as continuing to develop ballistic missiles, with the help of an infusion of $250 billion in US and European sanctions relief.

The horror of the carnage in Syria overshadowed the fact that President Obama allowed Tehran to pump Revolutionary Guards forces into the country through Iraq in order to fight for the brutal Assad regime. The president made no effort to halt the influx of pro-Iranian Shiite groups, including the Lebanese Hizballah, into Syria, as though it was perfectly natural and his policies had nothing to do with bringing Israel’s arch-foes to its back door.

In 2015, too, when Obama tried to wash his hands of the Middle East at large, he opened the war for the Islamic State and its leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi to walk in and commandeer large swathes of Iraq and Syria virtually unopposed.

From those vantage points, the jihadists sent out a tentacle to Egyptian Sinai – close to another Israeli border.

Of late, the Obama has claimed he was not aware of ISIS’ potential for expansion, implying that US intelligence was at fault.

All the same, Obama never tired of emphasizing that he had done more than any US president before him to support Israel’s security, mainly in the form of advanced US weapons systems supplied for its defense. Because of the close military and intelligence ties between the two countries, no voice was raised to contradict him.

It is now time to point to the hypocrisy of the incumbent president’s posture: Had he invested less in granting benefits and free rein to the Jewish state’s closest enemies, Israel would perhaps have been less dependent on American hardware.

In the latest UN Security Council resolution, Israel is reprimanded on the score that “all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including east Jerusalem, are illegal under international law and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of peace on the basis of the two-state solution.”

Before anyone else, Barack Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry are in a position to attest to the falseness of this equation.

On Nov. 25, 2009, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would impose a 10-month freeze on construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem as a concession to ease the US peace initiative. Israel gave way further on its demand for direct negotiations, when Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas dug his heels in against meeting Israeli officials face to face. John Kerry was forced to engage in shuttle diplomacy.
Even after those concessions for peace, the Obama initiative fell flat when it came up against Palestinian resistance.

The departing US president seems determined to use his last weeks in office to teach the Israeli prime minister a painful lesson he won’t forget in a hurry after his White House exit on Jan. 20.

But he is getting it wrong one more time. The UN SC resolution will soon be reduced to a piece of paper. The Palestinians will wave it gladly in the face of the international community, but Israel won’t remove a single settlement or stop building new housing estates in Jerusalem. The Prime Minister’s Office made it clear that Israel is not bound by the resolution and rejects it.
The only concrete result will be to make peace more elusive than ever

The notion that Donald Trump will come riding to Israel’s rescue as soon as he moves into the Oval Office is foolish. He was elected to rebuild America as a global power. That would necessarily include restoring US influence in the Middle East, but how he proposes to accomplish this is not generally known.

If he decides to call on Israel for support and assistance, it stands to reason that he will introduce radical changes in Obama’s steps – especially the nuclear deal with Iran and the peace process with the Palestinians.

Not all those changes can be achieved peacefully. They may well entail the use of military force by the United States and Israel. In this sense, Security Council Resolution 2334 may turn out to be the real obstacle to peace, tending rather to promote belligerence in the Middle East, because the Palestinians and other hardliners and rejectionists will use the resolution as their justification for bashing Israel and more acts of terror.

Cartoons and Videos of the Day

December 24, 2016

Via LATMA

 

Via LATMA

 

H/t Town Hall Cartoons

trumpderangement

 

Via Freedom is Just Another Word

compared

 

H/t Power Line

obamamas

Krauthammer’s Take: Abstention on Anti-Israel Vote a Disgrace: ‘U.S. Joined the Jackals at the U.N.’

December 24, 2016

Krauthammer’s Take: Abstention on Anti-Israel Vote a Disgrace: ‘U.S. Joined the Jackals at the U.N.’ Fox News via YouTube, December 23, 2016

Obama Rhymes-With-Bucks Israel

December 24, 2016

Obama Rhymes-With-Bucks Israel, Power LineScott Johnson, December 23, 2016

What matters is dismantling the alliance system that has kept America and much of the rest of the world secure in favor of a new system of the President’s own devising, in which the U.S. partners with Iran and stands idly by while 500,000 civilians are massacred in Syria, and Russia and China launch cyber-attacks targeting key U.S. institutions without fear of retribution or reprisal—actions that are reserved only for America’s friends.

***************************

President Obama checked off another item on his “rhymes with bucket list” today in the United Nations. The United States abstained in a 14-0 vote by the UN Security Council condemning all Israeli building and activity in the West Bank as “illegal,” including building in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and Israel’s sovereign access to the Western Wall. The Security Council resolution had been put forward by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal. The Prime Minister’s Office in Israel has responded: “Israel rejects this shameful anti-Israel resolution at the UN and will not abide by its terms. At a time when the Security Council does nothing to stop the slaughter of half a million people in Syria, it disgracefully gangs up on the one true democracy in the Middle East, Israel, and calls the Western Wall “occupied territory.” I would like to associate myself with Lee Smith’s comments at Tablet (whole thing here). Smith writes:

In a sense, the UN vote is a perfect bookend to Obama’s Presidency. A man who came to office promising to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel, has done exactly that by breaking with decades of American policy. It is also seeking—contrary to established tradition and practice, which strictly prohibit such lame-duck actions—to tie the hands of the next White House, which has already made its pro-Israel posture clear.

No doubt that many of those critical of the U.S.-Israel relationship will defend and applaud the administration’s action, even as the effects of the resolution are obscene. So what if it enshrines in international law the fact that Jews can’t build homes or have sovereign access to their holy sites in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish people for more than 3000 years? Israel, as Kerry said, is too prosperous to care about peace with the Palestinians. Maybe some hardship will shake some sense into the Jewish State—which after all, could easily have made a just and secure peace with the Palestinian leadership at any time over the past two decades, if that’s what it wanted to do. Accounts to the contrary, from Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, say, or left-wing Israeli politicians like former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the late Shimon Peres, are simply propaganda generated by the pro-Israel Lobby, whose wings the President has thankfully clipped.

But the Obama Administration’s abstention isn’t just about Israel or bilateral relations with a vital partner in a key region. It’s also about the prestige of the United States and its power—the power, for instance, undergirding international institutions like the United Nations. Consider how the Obama Administration has used the UN the last several years—to legalize the nuclear program of Iran, a state sponsor of terror, and make it illegal for Jews to build in their historical homeland. In Turtle Bay, the White House partners with sclerotic socialist kleptocracies like Venezuela in order to punish allies, like Israel. Is this American moral leadership? For Sean Penn, maybe.

Israel is likely to profess not to care that much about the actions of a lame-duck President in a forum that has long been famous for its antipathy to the Jewish State. But in private, Israeli officials are said to be panicking at the fresh gust of wind that the President Obama has blown into the sails of the BDS movement, especially in Europe.

Also panicking are Democratic members of Congress whose re-election prospects in 2018 may have just been sacrificed by the departing leader of their Party. Democratic Senator and reputed Presidential hopeful Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a J Street favorite who is up for re-election in 2018 in a state that Donald Trump won by a 9 percent margin, showed the extent of his own distress on Friday by issuing a statement opposing a U.S. abstention. That statement read in part: “Earlier this fall I joined Senate colleagues urging the Administration to uphold its position opposing one-sided resolutions at the U.N. Security Council regarding Israel. Any lasting peace must be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians, not imposed by the international community.”

Whether issuing such statements will be enough to keep swing-state Jewish voters and other pro-Israel Democrats in line in 2018 remains to be seen—but clearly, the health of the Democratic Party, which lost over 1000 officeholders during Obama’s tenure, is hardly the first thing on the President’s mind, either. What matters is dismantling the alliance system that has kept America and much of the rest of the world secure in favor of a new system of the President’s own devising, in which the U.S. partners with Iran and stands idly by while 500,000 civilians are massacred in Syria, and Russia and China launch cyber-attacks targeting key U.S. institutions without fear of retribution or reprisal—actions that are reserved only for America’s friends.

Obama Joins the Jackals

December 24, 2016

Obama Joins the Jackals, Washington Free Beacon , December 23, 2016

The Jewish Federation of North America, or JFNA, one of the country’s largest and most influential pro-Israel organizations, described the administration’s actions as “tragic” and said the move is likely to mar Obama’s legacy.

“It is tragic that the administration chose to mar its legacy of support for the Jewish State and set back the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace,” the organization said in a statement.

The Anti-Defamation League, a historically left-leaning organization that is headed by a former Obama administration official, said that it was “outraged” by Obama’s decision to allow the anti-Israel measure to be approved.

***********************************

Multiple sources from across the Jewish organizational world and in Congress are accusing the Obama administration of stabbing “Israel in the back” on Friday by choosing not to veto a United Nations resolution censuring the Jewish state, according to conversations with sources.

The resolution, which has been floating through the U.N. for some time, finally came to a vote in the Security Council on Friday, where the Obama administration reversed years of policy by abstaining from the vote instead of vetoing it.

The decision quickly drew outrage across the pro-Israel community and in Congress, where multiple sources told the Washington Free Beacon that the incoming Trump administration is likely to pursue consequences for the U.N.’s action.

Israeli officials also lashed out at the Obama administration, calling its behavior “shameful” and alleging that President Obama used the anti-Israel vote as a way to express his hostility for the Jewish state before vacating the Oval Office.

“The Obama administration has long flirted with international efforts to delegitimize Israel, so what happened today isn’t really surprising,” said one senior congressional aide who spoke to the Free Beacon only on background when discussing potential action against the U.N.

“The good news is that a Republican government will enable us to roll back the Obama administration’s hostile anti-Israel policies,” the source said. “President-elect Trump has already signaled a level of support for Israel that we haven’t seen in eight years. Now we have a real opportunity to hold Iran accountable, fight BDS, and do everything possible to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region.”

Trump warned the U.N. shortly after the vote via Twitter that “things will be different” after his inauguration.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) said that Congress and Trump will work together “to reverse the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with Israel.”

A senior official at a national Jewish organization who works with Congress and the White House told the Free Beacon that Obama intentionally abstained from the vote in order to “stab our Israeli allies in the back.”

“The only reason Republicans have kept funding for the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations is because the Obama administration said the funding was helpful to American diplomacy,” the source said. “President Obama just used that diplomacy to stab our Israeli allies in the back. Republican lawmakers are already talking about how they can come together with the Trump administration to axe that spending. Democrats, many of whom will now be in trouble with constituents, are certainly not going to get in their way.”

Lawmakers and national Jewish organizations quickly condemned the administration’s behavior, accusing it of abandoning Israel at a time of need.

“The Obama administration’s decision to abstain from today’s UN Security Council vote is disgraceful,” Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill) said in a statement. “The adopted resolution is anti-Israel and anti-peace.‎ Congress and the incoming administration will stand with our friends and allies, and oppose all efforts to delegitimize Israel.”

The Jewish Federation of North America, or JFNA, one of the country’s largest and most influential pro-Israel organizations, described the administration’s actions as “tragic” and said the move is likely to mar Obama’s legacy.

“It is tragic that the administration chose to mar its legacy of support for the Jewish State and set back the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace,” the organization said in a statement.

“The administration’s decision undermined a core principle of American foreign policy that has been embraced by Democratic and Republican Administrations for decades: that the only route to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is through direct negotiations between the parties,” JFNA said.

The Anti-Defamation League, a historically left-leaning organization that is headed by a former Obama administration official, said that it was “outraged” by Obama’s decision to allow the anti-Israel measure to be approved.

“We are outraged over the U.S. failure to veto this biased and unconstructive UNSC resolution on Israel,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, the ADL’s CEO. “This resolution will do little to renew peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians. It will only encourage further Palestinian intransigence vis-à-vis direct negotiations with Israel in favor of unilateral, one-sided initiatives.”

“The Obama administration repeatedly stated that a solution to the conflict cannot be imposed on the parties but must be achieved directly by the parties themselves,” Greenblatt added. “It is deeply troubling that this biased resolution appears to be the final word of the administration on this issue.”

Amb. Bolton on US abstention from UN Israel vote

December 24, 2016

Amb. Bolton on US abstention from UN Israel vote, Fox News via YouTube, December 23, 2016

FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA – A CALL FOR GENOCIDE

December 24, 2016

Published on Oct 15, 2015

By Pierre Rehov. www.middleeaststudio.com

According to most Palestinians, “Israeli Occupation” means Tel Aviv, Ber Sheva and Haifa, and for their leaders, Palestine should be built “From the River to the Sea”. Meaning, should replace Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

In this disturbing film, “From the River to the Sea”, a revised version of “Hostages of Hatred” acclaimed director Pierre Rehov sets out to tell us the real story of those men, women and children, who have been shamefully used as mere pawns for over 50 years, by Arab leaders at first, by Palestinian leaders later on and until this very day but also by the United Nations’ body that was specially created to supposedly take care of them: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNWRA.