Archive for September 17, 2017

« WarSclerotic home page

The Rogue’s Gallery at the UN Human Rights Council

September 17, 2017

The Rogue’s Gallery at the UN Human Rights Council | Anne’s Opinions, 17th September 2017

In the unlikely event that we might have forgotten what the UN is really about (hint: it is not all sweetness and light, or democracy and peace), here is UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer to remind us, as he reports on last week’s Human Rights Wrongs Council debating imposing sanctions on dictatorships. The panel of course was populated by a rogue’s gallery of dictators:

Even within the rogues’ gallery that is the U.N. human rights Council, today’s council panel attacking Western democracies for imposing sanctions on dictatorships was the mother of all rogues’ galleries.

The panelists:

1. Lead panelist was UN expert Idriss Jazairy, who described Putin’s Russia as a human rights victim. Coincidentally, as UN Watch revealed today, Jazairy received $50,000 from the Russian government. As Algerian ambassador to UN, he once said “antisemitism targets Arabs.”

2. Alena Douhan, a Belarus academic with a soft spot for Russia, whose doctorate was on the principle of “non-interference” in countries’ “internal affairs.”

3. Alfred de Zayas, the Cuban-appointed expert for a “democratic and equitable international order.” Zayas has defended Iran’s right to nuclear weapons, and writes books claiming Germany suffered a “genocide” in 1945. Zayas is a hero to Holocaust deniers.

4. Jean Ziegler, co-founder & 2002 recipient of the Qaddafi Human Rights Prize. In his presentation, Ziegler actually defended the murderous Maduro regime of Venezuela, which he said was being victimized by a U.S. “economic war.”

5. Panel Chair: the ambassador of Venezuela’s Maduro regime, Jorge Romero. He effusively thanked Ziegler for his kind words.

6. Peggy Hicks, a top official in the office of UN high commissioner Zeid, delivered the opening statement. A former Human Rights Watch official, we hoped she would provide a dissenting voice. Instead, she echoed the same line. And when Ziegler spouted pro-Maduro propaganda, Hicks was silent.

Welcome to the U.N. human rights council.

Watch the video:

 

UN Watch was also busy with Venezuelan opposition figures who held a panel objecting to the plenary address by the Venezuelan Foreign Minister at the Human Rights Council:

GENEVA, Sept. 11, 2017 – Venezuelan opposition figures, family members of political prisoners, and human rights activists gathered today at the 47-nation U.N. human rights council to refute the plenary address by foreign minister Jorge Arreaza.

Venezuelan opposition figures, family members of political prisoners, and human rights activists protest the plenary address of the Venezuelan FM at the Human Rights Council

UN Watch, the Geneva-based non-governmental human rights group, together with Venezuela por Iniciative, organized a panel of leading Venezuelan voices, at a side event held below the human rights council chamber, to represent the views of the pro-democracy opposition.

UN Watch has submitted a draft resolution (en español) calling or the suspension of Venezuela from the UNHRC, which has been published as an official UN document. Executive director Hillel Neuer urged member states, especially Peru on behalf of the Lima Group, to adopt a resolution.

Diego Arria, the former Venezuelan ambassador to the UN and Security Council president, called for the dictator Nicolas Maduro to be indicted by the International Criminal Court. Click here for Arria speech | En Español

Julieta Lopez, aunt of pro-democracy leader and political prisoner Leopoldo Lopez. Click for speech.

Rosaura Valentini, wife of political prisoner Yon Goiechocheca, said people are completely dehumanized. Child mortality declined to 1950s figures. Elderly die for lack of essential drugs. There is widepsread malnutrition. Mayors have been taken prisoner, despite having been chosen by the vote of the people. Violinist playing music was also taken as a prisoner. Hundreds of protesters are taken as prisoners. Click here for UNHRC plenary speech.

Unfortunately it appears that UN Watch’s appeal to bar the Venezuelan Foreign Minister has fallen on deaf ears at the UN HRC. Sadly that was unsurprising. Our expectations from that rogues gallery of villains could hardly sink any lower.

Nevertheless Hillel Neuer and UN Watch have to be commended for their unstinting work in pursuing dictators and tyrants at the UN, showcasing their bias and hypocrisy for all the world to see.

Categories: Russian sanctions, UN - rogue entities, UN and human rights, UN Human RIghts Council, Venezuela
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Haley: ‘North Korea Will Be Destroyed’ if the U.S. Has to Defend Itself

September 17, 2017

Haley: ‘North Korea Will Be Destroyed’ if the U.S. Has to Defend Itself, Washington Free Beacon, , September 17, 2017

(Please see also, Our Rhineland moment. — DM)

 

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley said Sunday “North Korea will be destroyed” if the U.S. is forced to defend itself against the belligerent country.

CNN host Dana Bash asked Haley on “State Of The Union” if President Donald Trump’s “fire and fury” remarks last month against dictator Kim Jong Un was an empty threat.

Haley said the threats were not empty and if the diplomatic process with North Korea doesn’t work she “would be perfectly happy to send this over to [Defense] Secretary Mattis” since he has “plenty of military options.”

“It was not an empty threat. What we were doing is being responsible. Where North Korea is being irresponsible and reckless, we were being responsible by trying to use every diplomatic possibility that we could possibly do. We’ve pretty much exhausted all the things that we could do at the security council at this point,” Haley said.

Bash followed up the original question by asking if Trump’s “fire and fury” remark meant a military option.

“By saying General Mattis will take care of it, you’re are talking about the Pentagon and you’re talking about a military option. Is that what ‘fire and fury’ meant?” Bash asked.

Haley answered firmly saying if the United States has to defend itself “North Korea will be destroyed.”

“You have to ask the president what fire and fury meant. But I think we all know that basically if North Korea keeps on with this reckless behavior, if the United States has to defend itself or defend its allies in any way, North Korea will be destroyed,” Haley said. “We all know that, and none of us want that.”

“None of us want war, but we also have to look at the fact that you’re are dealing with someone who is being reckless and irresponsible and is continuing to give threats not only to the United States but to all of their allies, so something is going to have to be done,” she added.

Categories: Nikki Haley, North Korea - destruction, North Korea - military options, North Korea - negotiations, North Korea sanctions, North Korean missiles, North Korean nukes
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

UK: How Much More Abuse of Children Do We Permit?

September 17, 2017

UK: How Much More Abuse of Children Do We Permit? Gatestone Institute, Khadija Khan, September 17, 2017

In 2014, an inquiry by Ofsted, the body that regulates schools in England, to inspect the teachings of Muslim private schools, emerged with findings that are devastating. According to Ofsted, some children were unable to understand the difference between Sharia Law and British Law, and sounded more committed to religious teachings than to British laws.

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

How is it that we never see demands for legislation to ban dragging young girls into a system of misogynistic beliefs?

The West accepts pampering these extremists in the name of freedom of expression when these extremists themselves do not believe in any such freedom.

Female genital mutilation (FGM), despite having been banned since 1985, takes place in the UK every hour. This criminal behavior is made possible only by the British authorities’ indifference.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who is also chairman of Transport for London (TfL), has issued a belated apology for depicting — in an advertisement launched by the Children’s Traffic Club London (created by TfL to promote traffic safety) — a small girl in a headscarf as representative of a Muslim minor. In Islam, headscarves are not usually worn until a girl has reach puberty. The Independent reported: “TfL apologised for any offence caused and said the images will be removed from the campaign. London Mayor Sadiq Khan, chair of TfL, also apologised for the campaign”.

The apology, however, sounds more like just lip service: none of the British authorities has bothered to notice the escalating trend of making Muslim baby girls wear a veil.

It took a campaign advertisement to make them realize how a headscarf, the hijab, a symbol of modesty, might be abusive to the minor girls by seemingly sexualizing them at an early age.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan issued a belated apology for depicting — in a public-service ad — a small girl in a headscarf as representative of a Muslim minor. (Image source: Transport for London, Richard Heathcote/Getty Images)

Muslim parents of these baby girls, as well as the schools run by Muslims, are mainly responsible for the increase in the frequency of veils for increasing younger girls, even though to may, the requirement is nothing short of a child abuse.

The reaction of British authorities to this controversial practice was in the general mode of, “We cannot endorse this nonsense, but if you want to carry on discriminating against your girls in the name of your belief system, we will not stop you”.

The current and growing trend of concealing even baby girls in the name of a religion, and then indoctrinating them, needs more than just an apology — both from the government and the so-called left-wing fringe. It is precisely their decades-long pattern of accommodating these extremist Muslims that has led to such degenerate behavior.

It is the height of irony — and a low state of affairs — that even government authorities have fallen prey to the propaganda of extremists who are now covering even their infant girls with a headscarf — and selling that practice as a symbol of modesty.

The civilized world should dread the day when burqa-clad girls and women will take over representing Muslim women. It is this attire that represents the coercive ideology that aims to subjugate women through and violence and threats of violence.

What is fortunate is that a traffic awareness campaign gone wrong exposed the plight of these girls: Islamic schools, run by the fundamentalists under the shadow of apologetic British authorities, had encouraged hiding them.

Heartbreakingly, so many people, often well-intended, seem carried away by the pro-veil campaigns of these Muslim extremists. They not only market their demands to conceal women as a symbol of modesty; they also brainwash young girls that those who do not wear these burqas or hijabs have a baser character.

In the West, where people are allowed to wear what they wish, putting a woman behind a veil looks like anything but “modesty”. It looks more like coercion, control and domination.

“It’s like a cage. I wish men could also be trapped like this so that they would understand how much we suffer,” said a woman in Afghanistan.

The extremists who hide girls are robbing them of their childhood.

How is it that we never see demands for legislation to ban dragging young girls into a system of misogynistic beliefs?

The West accepts pampering these extremists in the name of freedom of expression, when these extremists themselves do not believe in any such freedom. Many in the West, in fact, have been trying to knock down the humane laws of the civilized world to have them with the restrictive Islamic laws of Shariah.

Muslim private schools in Britain are increasingly inspired by the Islamist ideology, which promotes beating women; killing homosexuals, apostates and blasphemers; discouraging any kind of interaction with non-Muslims; eradicating Jews and spewing hatred against people of other faiths.

In 2014, an inquiry by Ofsted, the body that regulates schools in England, to inspect the teachings of Muslim private schools, emerged with findings that are devastating. According to Ofsted, some children were unable to understand the difference between Sharia Law and British Law, and sounded more committed to religious teachings than to British laws.

That extremists get away with such manipulations seems directly connected to the lack of any legal means to curb extremist practices by conservative Muslims. Objectionable behavior is simply ignored. A British court in 2016, for instance, ruled that Ofsted was “erroneous” in viewing the segregation of boys and girls in an Islamic school as discriminatory.

Female genital mutilation, despite having been banned since 1985, takes place in the UK every hour. This criminal behavior is made possible only by the British authorities’ indifference.

Just calling some practices illegal clearly does not deter anyone, unless it is followed by tough action and harsh sentences against those who violate the law.

Official, willfully-blind, political correctness is causing irreparable damage to those girls. They are being simultaneously sexualized and ranked as sub-human by these pseudo-religious and cultural practices.

Mayor Sadiq Khan did the right thing by apologizing for the misguided ad campaign — the same way he earned respect from Londoners by supporting equality for LGBTQ community.

Now we please need him to support tough legislation to ban discrimination against Muslim children under the excuse or religious beliefs — even if that could mean offending some of his friends.

Khadija Khan is a Pakistani journalist and commentator, currently based in Germany.

Categories: Formerly Great Britain, Islam - submission, Islam and girls, Sharia law and females
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Our Rhineland moment

September 17, 2017

Our Rhineland moment, Israel National News, Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, September 17, 2017

Just as the Neville Chamberlains of 1939 were so paralyzed by fear of a replay of World War I that they preferred to ignore or explain away Nazi Germany’s rearmament and Imperial Japan’s naval build-up, their U.S. counterparts in 2017 are so fearful of facing a nuclear-armed North Korea that some would like to pretend a nation that has the H-Bomb cannot build a simple reentry vehicle or make an EMP attack.

Our elites cling to the fantasy that China and economic sanctions can save us, that North Korean denuclearization can be achieved peacefully.  But the evidence is now overwhelming that China and Russia have helped build the North Korean nuclear threat as part of their New Cold War to force the United States out of the Pacific and out of its role as the world policeman.

When the U.S. and its allies must seek security from North Korea by appealing for help from Beijing and Moscow, as we are doing now, the world order is already being transformed.  The Nuclear Axis seeks our acquiescence to their domination, peacefully if possible, if necessary through war.

North Korea’s nuclear Hitler has entered the technological Rhineland of H-Bombs and ICBMs.  We must strike.

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

North Korea’s successful test of an H-Bomb on September 2 has been preceded by many years of denial behavior by U.S. statesmen, intelligence experts, academics and the press about the sophistication of Pyongyang’s nuclear missile program. Again?

Is the naivete and willful blindness that helped begin World War II on September 1, 1939, being repeated in the response of the U.S. and its allies to North Korea’s nuclear missile program, that apparently tested a thermonuclear H-Bomb warhead on September 2, 2017?

Parallels are striking between what psychiatrists describe as “denial behavior” by western elites that contributed to the Second World War, and “denial behavior” toward the North Korean nuclear threat.

As everyone used to know, when history was taught in schools, prior to 1939 Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan ruthlessly violated international treaties to arm themselves for a major war of conquest, that would become World War II.  Berlin and Tokyo were ineffectually opposed by the League of Nations and the western democracies, who would become their victims.

Less well known is that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were helped, unwittingly, by western statesmen, military experts, academics and the press, who could not believe any rational actor would risk replaying the holocaust that was World War I, still recent in many memories.  Complex rationalizations were invented to explain away the words and deeds of Adolph Hitler and Imperial Japan, including their treaty violations and aggression.

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan’s growing military strength, when it could no longer be denied, was dismissed by confidence that the horrors of a new world war would be sufficient to deter.  Mutual Assured Destruction was an article of faith before World War II, expressed in different words, as when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain opined, “The bomber will always get through.”

Underestimation of German and Japanese military capabilities set up the allies for near defeat when war came.

North Korea’s successful test of an H-Bomb on September 2 has been preceded by many years of denial behavior by U.S. statesmen, intelligence experts, academics and the press about the sophistication of Pyongyang’s nuclear missile program:

–Just six months ago, most experts thought North Korea’s nuclear arsenal was primitive and tiny, perhaps as few as 6 A-Bombs.  Now the intelligence community estimates North Korea has 60 nuclear weapons.

–Just six months ago, many experts thought North Korea’s ICBMs were fake missiles, only for show, and most experts thought, if they were real, they could not strike the U.S. mainland.  Now the intelligence community estimates North Korea’s ICBMs can strike at least as far as Chicago, and probably hit anywhere in the United States.

–Just six months ago, most experts thought North Korea was many years away from developing an H-Bomb.  Now the U.S. intelligence community assesses that North Korea has the H-Bomb, with a yield tested at 140 kilotons (Japan estimates160 kilotons), about 14-16 times more powerful than the A-Bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, comparable in power to sophisticated U.S. two-stage thermonuclear weapons.

–Just six months ago, most experts claimed North Korean ICBMs could not deliver a nuclear warhead, because Pyongyang had not yet “demonstrated” it could miniaturize an A-Bomb to fit inside a reentry vehicle, or design a reentry vehicle capable of penetrating the atmosphere.  Now the intelligence community assesses North Korea has miniaturized A-Bombs and H-Bombs, and reentry vehicles for missile delivery, including by ICBMs that can strike the United States.

Perhaps the most extreme denial behavior is over North Korea’s capability to make a nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack-that could destroy the United States with a single weapon.  The blue ribbon Congressional EMP Commission has warned for years that North Korea probably has Super-EMP weapons.

North Korea confirmed the EMP Commission’s assessment by testing an H-Bomb that could make a devastating EMP attack, and in a public statement: “The H-Bomb, the explosive power of which is adjustable from tens of kilotons to hundreds of kilotons, is a multi-functional thermonuclear weapon with great destructive power which can be detonated even at high altitudes for super-powerful EMP attack according to strategic goals.”

Pyongyang also released a technical report accurately describing a Super-EMP weapon.

Just six months ago, some academics dismissed EMP Commission warnings and even, literally, laughed on National Public Radio at the idea North Korea could make an EMP attack.

Amazingly, Sig Hecker, a respected scientist and former director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, is still in denial about the North Korean EMP threat, claiming it must be disinformation.  But since their H-Bomb is undeniably real, so too is North Korea’s EMP threat.

Amazingly, some academics are still bending over backwards to deny North Korea has miniaturized warheads, reentry vehicles, and ICBMs that can strike the U.S., inventing preposterous theories to escape reality, just like their brethren who paved the way to World War II with denial.

Just as the Neville Chamberlains of 1939 were so paralyzed by fear of a replay of World War I that they preferred to ignore or explain away Nazi Germany’s rearmament and Imperial Japan’s naval build-up, their U.S. counterparts in 2017 are so fearful of facing a nuclear-armed North Korea that some would like to pretend a nation that has the H-Bomb cannot build a simple reentry vehicle or make an EMP attack.

Another factor that helped bring on World War II was the western democracies were undergoing a civilizational crisis, as we are today.

Elites and peoples lost faith in themselves and their institutions as a result of the Great Depression and World War I.  Many believed the false narrative that the First World War resulted from a conspiracy by “merchants of death” among the industrial and political elites to become wealthy by war profiteering.  Nationalism was condemned by many as the root of war.  Globalists of the 1920s and 1930s fantasized that a Kellogg-Briand Pact and League of Nations could outlaw war, just as globalists today fantasize that the United Nations, international treaties and sanctions can achieve a world without nuclear weapons, while doubting the nationalist values and institutions that made the United States, and the Free World, great and free.

Indeed, economic sanctions against Imperial Japan, viewed as a peaceful way to stop Tokyo’s aggression against China and Manchuria, instead resulted in Japan’s surprise attack against the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Most dangerous, the Neville Chamberlains of 1939 believed that because “the bomber will always get through” they could deter World War II.  The Neville Chamberlains of 2017 are so fearful of nuclear weapons that they are ready to surrender to the fantasy that we can learn to live with a nuclear-armed North Korea.

Those like Susan Rice, former national security advisor to President Obama, who are willing to make the world, in President Kennedy’s famous words about protecting freedom, “pay any price, bear any burden” to stop Global Warming, are all too eager to surrender our children to a future of Mutual Assured Destruction with Kim Jong-Un.

The new rationalization for doing nothing militarily is it is too late, would cost too many lives, and we can learn to live with nuclear North Korea as we did with the USSR during the Cold War.  But North Korea is not the USSR, and the nuclear-armed Caligula in Pyongyang is not  Moscow’s Politburo, dangerous as it was.  And the Cold War is no good paradigm for survival.  The world barely escaped a thermonuclear holocaust at least a dozen times. (See my book “War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink.”)

The U.S. and allied elites have so educated themselves about the horrors of nuclear war that we are self-deterred, and will not act militarily to save ourselves.

Our elites cling to the fantasy that China and economic sanctions can save us, that North Korean denuclearization can be achieved peacefully.  But the evidence is now overwhelming that China and Russia have helped build the North Korean nuclear threat as part of their New Cold War to force the United States out of the Pacific and out of its role as the world policeman.

When the U.S. and its allies must seek security from North Korea by appealing for help from Beijing and Moscow, as we are doing now, the world order is already being transformed.  The Nuclear Axis seeks our acquiescence to their domination, peacefully if possible, if necessary through war.

If Russia and China’s North Korean nuclear gambit works in the Pacific, look next to Iran going nuclear, creating another nuclear crisis for the United States and its allies in the Middle East and Europe.  Iran’s nuclear missile program has been and is being helped by Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang, because Tehran is part of the Nuclear Axis waging the New Cold War against the still unwitting democracies of East and West.

U.S. abject surrender to a nuclear-armed North Korea by accepting Mutual Assured Destruction with Kim Jong-Un for ourselves and our allies, after proclaiming for 25 years that this is impossible, will destroy our credibility.  Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran will see such weakness as an invitation to aggression in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and against the United States.

Just as the Neville Chamberlains of 1939 brought World War II on themselves, the Neville Chamberlains of 2017 are on the verge of bringing on World War III.

Most historians agree that World War II could have been prevented and 60 million lives saved if the Allies had crushed Hitler when his military was still weak in 1936, but he seized the Rhineland anyway to test their political will.

Right now, North Korea has two satellites and fewer than a dozen ICBMs that could threaten the U.S. homeland.  These the U.S. could assuredly destroy in a very limited surgical strike using conventional weapons.

Kim Jong-Un would not likely retaliate massively as his regime would remain in power and retain nearly 1,000 short and medium-range missiles armed with conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear warheads.  Nonetheless, the U.S. should be prepared to promptly launch a large-scale disarming strike against North Korea using all means necessary-including nuclear weapons.

If Kim is so aggressive that he would bring on himself a nuclear holocaust over the loss of a dozen missiles and two satellites, we had better deal with him now, before he has 100 ICBMs.

North Korea’s nuclear Hitler has entered the technological Rhineland of H-Bombs and ICBMs.  We must strike.

Sent to Arutz Sheva by the author. A version of this piece also appeared on http://www.newsmax.com/

Categories: "Peace at any price", Denial, North Korea - military options, North Korea - negotiations, North Korea sanctions, North korean EMP attack, North Korean H Bomb test, North Korean missiles, North Korean nukes, Precursors to WWII
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

The aggressor becomes the deterred

September 17, 2017

The aggressor becomes the deterred, Israel Hayom, Prof. Eyal Zisser, September 17, 2017

[D]eputy Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem took pains to assuage the terrorist organization’s alarmed supporters, telling them that Israel was not interested in war. Furthermore, in a calming message directed at Israel, he added that despite the recent airstrike in Syria (attributed to Israel) – which, if true, is a direct blow to Hezbollah’s exposed underbelly – the organization was not looking to retaliate or go to war either. This marks a significant shift in tone for Hezbollah, which has customarily opted for menacing intimidation against Israel, in the knowledge that its threats would fall on open and mainly concerned ears.

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

The massive exercise conducted by the IDF’s Northern Corps along the Lebanese front, which concluded last week, indicates a revolutionary new thinking within the military that we can only hope will spill over into minds of the country’s political leaders. Unlike in the past, the IDF is not looking to merely deter the enemy; it isn’t seeking to change the reality along the border in some unclear, amorphous way. This time the IDF wants a decisive victory.

One example of this refreshing new approach can be found in the series of interviews given by senior IDF officers on the eve of the exercise and upon its conclusion. First in line was outgoing Israeli Air Force chief Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, who said Israel had restored the first-strike capabilities that had led it to victory in the 1967 Six-Day War. Eshel also touted the IAF’s increased firepower, which in one day of fighting allows it to hit and destroy the same scope of targets that required 34 days of fighting in the summer of 2016.

Other IDF officers emphasized that this time around, rather than settle for passive defense, the army focused its training on attacking Hezbollah, and its host, Lebanon.

Another shift could be seen in the military’s policy of containment, which now comes with clear caveats. As one senior official said: “We won’t play a game of tit-for-tat anymore. If Israeli sovereignty is violated, even once, and Israelis are hurt, the response will be decisive, powerful and cunning.”

If the reactions out of Lebanon are any indication, the drill has already met one of its objectives. Hezbollah apparently received the message and rushed to uncharacteristically deliver calming messages, clearly indicating that it fears a future war with Israel. Hezbollah knows that a future war will exact a far heavier toll on them than on Israel.

Thus, for instance, deputy Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem took pains to assuage the terrorist organization’s alarmed supporters, telling them that Israel was not interested in war. Furthermore, in a calming message directed at Israel, he added that despite the recent airstrike in Syria (attributed to Israel) – which, if true, is a direct blow to Hezbollah’s exposed underbelly – the organization was not looking to retaliate or go to war either. This marks a significant shift in tone for Hezbollah, which has customarily opted for menacing intimidation against Israel, in the knowledge that its threats would fall on open and mainly concerned ears.

Over the years, Hezbollah has engaged in effective psychological warfare against Israel. It has managed to convince the country’s leaders that in a conflict, the damage to Israel would greatly outweigh the damage to Hezbollah and its supporters, and that therefore it should be wary of taking steps toward all-out war. The organization’s success also stemmed heavily from its willingness to take things to the brink and remain there, unlike Israel, which prefers to keep a safe distance. This was merely a form of psychological warfare with very little to back it up, and yet in the battle over minds and perception, Hezbollah consistently gave Israel a run for its money.

Now, however, the tables have turned. The IDF drill changed the discourse and the rules of the game. Hezbollah, formerly the agent of deterrence, is now the deterred; previously eager for battle, it is now pleading for Israel to stand down; the organization that used to regularly threaten Israelis is now preoccupied with allaying the fears of its supporters in Lebanon.

But in the end, wars never erupt in the Middle East because somebody really wants them to. They usually start because of lack of thought or an error in judgment. This, too, must be kept in mind in the wake of Or Hadagan, the code name given to the IDF’s exercise in the north.

Categories: Hezbollah vs Israel
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Intimidation Game, Cont’d

September 17, 2017

The Intimidation Game, Cont’d, Power Line,  Scott Johnson, September 17, 2017

Paul Mirengoff covered the Department of Justice’s September 8 reiteration of its decision not to prosecute Lois Lerner. Paul noted the absence of a rejoinder to the stated conclusion that the department lacked sufficient evidence to bring a case against Lerner. I hate cliches, but the more things change…

John Koskinen remains Commissioner of the IRS. Only last month Kim Strassel noted that the IRS is still toying with conservative nonprofits. Kim wrote that “Trump’s Justice Department has inexplicably continued to defend the IRS’s misdeeds under President Obama,” of which Kim herself covered many.

At the heart of Kim’s book The Intimidation Game lies a narrative account of the voluminous IRS wrongdoing during the Obama administration (chapters 7-11 and 21). It is chilling.

An unsigned editorial in the current issue of the Weekly Standard laments “The unaccountable IRS.” It does not cite evidence supporting the proposition that Lerner is guilty of criminal wrongdoing. However, it does restate the issues raised by the status quo while and take up themes that have occupied us over the years:

To understand the pragmatic realities of federal governance in the 21st century, one must recognize the existence of a fourth branch of government: the administrative state. We have some two million federal bureaucrats with extraconstitutional legislative powers. Not only do they write the reams of regulations that order our lives, they have the authority to enforce them capriciously. And thanks to absurd civil service protections, it is exceedingly difficult to hold them accountable for abuses of power, even when Congress demands it.

Of course, you can’t censure federal bureaucrats for their crimes if you don’t even try. On September 8, Donald Trump’s Justice Department announced it would not be reopening an investigation into the conduct of Lois Lerner, the IRS official responsible for targeting and harassing conservative groups in the 2010 and 2012 elections. That investigation had ended in 2015, when Barack Obama’s Justice Department stated it would not be charging Lerner or anyone else at the IRS because it “found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.”

Lerner herself admitted “absolutely inappropriate” targeting had taken place but blamed it on “front-line people.” Soon after, she pleaded the Fifth in testimony to a congressional committee and was placed on administrative leave by the IRS. Emails later confirmed Lerner had a strong personal bias against conservatives (she called them “crazies” and “a—holes”), and there was an extensive and credible series of accusations that she harassed conservative groups when she worked for the Federal Election Commission in the 1990s. If all this doesn’t suggest motive and criminality, it’s still an outrage that Lerner, whose leave was never revoked, eventually retired from the IRS with a full and generous pension.

President Obama declared on national television during the height of the scandal that there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the agency. That’s laughable….

The intimidation game will be resumed unless something is done. The Standard editorial raises the question what is to be done. Concerned readers will want to check out the whole thing here.

Categories: Conservatives, Department of Justice, Internal Revenue Service, Law enforcement, Lois Lerner
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

State Department Waging “Open War” on White House

September 17, 2017

State Department Waging “Open War” on White House, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, September 17, 2017

“It’s not clear to me why the Secretary of State wishes to at once usurp the powers of the Congress and then to derail his boss’s rapprochement with the Israeli government.” — Foreign policy operative, quoted in the Washington Free Beacon.

Since he was sworn in as Secretary of State on February 1, Rex Tillerson and his advisors at the State Department have made a number of statements and policy decisions that contradict President Trump’s key campaign promises on foreign policy, especially regarding Israel and Iran.

“Tillerson was supposed to clean house, but he left half of them in place and he hid the other half in powerful positions all over the building. These are career staffers committed to preventing Trump from reversing what they created.” — Veteran foreign policy analyst, quoted in the Free Beacon.

The U.S. State Department has backed away from a demand that Israel return $75 million in military aid which was allocated to it by the U.S. Congress.

The repayment demand, championed by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, was described as an underhanded attempt by the State Department to derail a campaign pledge by U.S. President Donald J. Trump to improve relations with the Jewish state.

The dispute is the just the latest example of what appears to be a growing power struggle between the State Department and the White House over the future direction of American foreign policy.

The controversy goes back to the Obama administration’s September 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Israel, which pledged $38 billion in military assistance to Jerusalem over the next decade. The MOU expressly prohibits Israel from requesting additional financial aid from Congress.

Congressional leaders, who said the MOU violates the constitutional right of lawmakers to allocate U.S. aid, awarded Israel an additional $75 million in assistance in the final appropriations bill for fiscal year 2017.

Tillerson had argued that Israel should return the $75 million in order to stay within the limits established by the Obama administration. The effort provoked a strong reaction from Congress, which apparently prompted Tillerson to back down.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) “strongly warned the State Department that such action would be unwise and invite unwanted conflict with Israel,” according to the Washington Free Beacon.

Speaking to the Washington Examiner, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) added:

“As Iran works to surround Israel on every border, and Hezbollah and Hamas rearm, we must work to strengthen our alliance with Israel, not strain it. Congress has the right to allocate money as it deems necessary, and security assistance to Israel is a top priority. Congress is ready to ensure Israel receives the assistance it needs to defend its citizens.”

A veteran congressional advisor told the Free Beacon:

“This is a transparent attempt by career staffers in the State Department to f*ck with the Israelis and derail the efforts of Congressional Republicans and President Trump to rebuild the US-Israel relationship. There’s no reason to push for the Israelis to return the money, unless you’re trying to drive a wedge between Israel and Congress, which is exactly what this is. It won’t work.”

Another foreign policy operative said: “It’s not clear to me why the Secretary of State wishes to at once usurp the powers of the Congress and then to derail his boss’s rapprochement with the Israeli government.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (left) and President Donald J. Trump (right) on February 1, 2017. (Image source: Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images)

Since he was sworn in as Secretary of State on February 1, Tillerson and his advisors at the State Department have made a number of statements and policy decisions that contradict Trump’s key campaign promises on foreign policy, especially regarding Israel and Iran.

August 10. The State Department hosted representatives of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), an umbrella group established by the Muslim Brotherhood with the aim of mainstreaming political Islam in the United States. Behind closed doors, they reportedly discussed what they said was Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and the removal of all Israeli control of the Temple Mount and holy areas of Jerusalem. Observers said the meeting was part of larger effort by anti-Israel organizations to drive a wedge between the Trump administration and Israel. The USCMO includes a number of organizations, including American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), which promote “extreme anti-Israel views” and “anti-Zionist” propaganda, and which support boycotts of the Jewish state.

July 19. The State Department’s new “Country Reports on Terrorism 2016” blamed Israel for Palestinian Arab terrorism against Jews. It attributed Palestinian violence to: “lack of hope in achieving statehood;” “Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank;” “settler violence;” and “the perception that the Israeli government was changing the status quo on the Haram Al Sharif/Temple Mount.” The report also characterized Palestinian Authority payments to the families of so-called martyrs as “financial packages to Palestinian security prisoners…to reintegrate them into society.”

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) called on the State Department to hold the PA accountable in State Department Country reports: “The State Department report includes multiple findings that are both inaccurate and harmful to combating Palestinian terrorism…. At the highest level, the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership incites, rewards, and, in some cases, carries out terrorist attacks against innocent Israelis. In order to effectively combat terrorism, it is imperative that the United States accurately characterize its root cause — PA leadership.”

June 14. Tillerson voiced opposition to designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, saying that such a classification would complicate Washington’s relations in the Middle East. During his confirmation hearings on January 11, by contrast, Tillerson lumped the Brotherhood with al-Qaeda when talking about militant threats in the region. He said:

“Eliminating ISIS would be the first step in disrupting the capabilities of other groups and individuals committed to striking our homeland and our allies. The demise of ISIS would also allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical Islam like al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain elements within Iran.”

June 13. During testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Tillerson said he had received reassurances from President Mahmoud Abbas that the Palestinian Authority would end the practice of paying a monthly stipend to the families of suicide bombers and other attackers, commonly referred to by Palestinians as martyrs. One day later, Palestinian officials contradicted Tillerson, saying that there are no plans to stop payments to families of Palestinians killed or wounded carrying out attacks against Israelis.

May 22. Tillerson sidestepped questions on whether the Western Wall is part of Israel, while telling reporters aboard Air Force One they were heading to “Tel Aviv, home of Judaism.” Asked directly whether he considers the Western Wall under Israeli sovereignty, Tillerson replied: “The wall is part of Jerusalem.”

May 15. In an interview with Meet the Press, Tillerson appeared publicly to renege on Trump’s campaign promise to move the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem:

“The president, I think rightly, has taken a very deliberative approach to understanding the issue itself, listening to input from all interested parties in the region, and understanding what such a move, in the context of a peace initiative, what impact would such a move have.”

Tillerson also appeared to equate the State of Israel and the Palestinians:

“As you know, the president has recently expressed his view that he wants to put a lot of effort into seeing if we cannot advance a peace initiative between Israel and Palestine. And so I think in large measure the president is being very careful to understand how such a decision would impact a peace process.”

Critics of this stance have argued that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would, instead, advance the peace process by “shattering the Palestinian fantasy that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.”

March 8. The State Department confirmed that the Obama administration’s $221 million payment to the Palestinian Authority, approved just hours before Trump’s inauguration, had reached its destination. The Trump administration initially had vowed to freeze the payment.

In July 2017, the Free Beacon reported that Tillerson’s State Department was waging an “open political war” with the White House on a range of key issues, including the U.S.-Israel relationship, the Iran portfolio, and other matters:

“The tensions have fueled an outstanding power battle between the West Wing and State Department that has handicapped the administration and resulted in scores of open positions failing to be filled with Trump confidantes. This has allowed former Obama administration appointees still at the State Department to continue running the show and formulating policy, where they have increasingly clashed with the White House’s own agenda.”

A veteran foreign policy analyst interviewed by the Free Beacon laid the blame squarely on Tillerson:

“Foggy Bottom [a metonym for the State Department] is still run by the same people who designed and implemented Obama’s Middle East agenda. Tillerson was supposed to clean house, but he left half of them in place and he hid the other half in powerful positions all over the building. These are career staffers committed to preventing Trump from reversing what they created.”

Notable holdovers from the Obama administration are now driving the State Department’s Iran policy:

Michael Ratney, a top advisor to former Secretary of State John Kerry on Syria policy. Under the Trump administration, Ratney’s role at the State Department has been expanded to include Israel and Palestine issues. Ratney, who was the U.S. Consul in Jerusalem between 2012 and 2015, oversaw $465,000 in U.S. grants to wage a smear to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from office in 2015 parliamentary elections, according to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Ratney admitted to Senate investigators that he deleted emails containing information about the Obama administration’s relationship with the group.

Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., a career foreign service officer who serves as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Shannon, the State Department’s fourth-ranking official, has warned that scrapping the Iran deal would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. “Any effort to step away from the deal would reopen a Pandora’s box in that region that would be hard to close again,” he said. His statement indicates that Shannon could be expected to lead efforts to resist any attempts to renege or renegotiate the deal; critics of the deal say that Iran’s continued missile testing has given Trump one more reason to tear up his predecessor’s deal with the Islamist regime.

Chris Backemeyer is now the highest-ranking official at the State Department for Iran policy. During the Obama administration, Backemeyer made his career by selling the Iran deal by persuading multinational corporations to do business with Iran as part of an effort to conclude the Iran nuclear deal.

Ratney, Shannon and Backemeyer, along with Tillerson, reportedly prevailed upon Trump twice to recertify the Iran nuclear deal. The Jerusalem Post explained:

Washington was briefly abuzz on the afternoon of July 17 when rumors began to circulate that President Trump was eager to declare that Iran was in breach of the conditions laid out in the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA).

Those receptive antennas were further heightened given the previous signals sent. After all, the State Department already released talking points to reporters on the decision to recertify Iran. The Treasury Department also had a package of fresh sanctions on over a dozen Iranian individuals and entities ready to announce to appease the hawks who were eager to cut loose from the deal.

But Trump didn’t want to recertify Iran, nor did he want to the last time around in April. That evening, a longtime Middle East analyst close to senior White House officials involved in the discussions described the scene to me: “Tillerson essentially told the president, ‘we just aren’t ready with our allies to decertify.’ The president retorted, ‘Isn’t it your job to get our allies ready?’ to which Tillerson said, ‘Sorry sir, we’re just not ready.'” According to this source, Secretary Tillerson pulled the same maneuver when it came to recertification in April by waiting until the last minute before finally admitting the State Department wasn’t ready. On both occasions he simply offered something to the effect of, “We’ll get ’em next time.”

Categories: Department of State and Israel, Iran, Muslim Brotherhood, Secretary of State Tillerson, Trump administration, Trump agenda, Trump and Iran, Trump and Iran scam, Trump and Islamic terrorism, Trump and Israel, Trump and Muslim Brotherhood, Trump and Palestinians
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iranian Revolutionary Guard says it has ‘father of all bombs’

September 17, 2017

Source: Iranian Revolutionary Guard says it has ‘father of all bombs’ | The Times of Israel

Aerospace wing and missile program head General Amir Ali Hajizadeh touts 10-ton missile he says is comparable to US-made MOAB

By TOI staff September 17, 2017, 2:48 am
Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh. (Screen capture: YouTube/MEMRITVVideos)

Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh. (Screen capture: YouTube/MEMRITVVideos)

The head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s aerospace wing and missile program said that the country is in possession of hugely destructive missiles comparable to the Unites States’ so called “Mother Of All Bombs,” the world’s largest non-nuclear bomb.

“Following a proposal by the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), Iran’s Defense Industries Organization manufactured a 10-ton bomb,” General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said in an interview with the state-linked FARS news agency on Friday. “These bombs are at our disposal and can be launched from Ilyushin aircraft and they are highly destructive.”

Hajizadeh referred to the missile as the “father of all bombs,” comparing it to the US produced GBU-43 Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, or MOAB, which contains 11 tons of explosives and has been nicknamed the Mother of All Bombs.

In April, the US military used the bomb in Afghanistan, killing 36 militants as it destroyed a deep tunnel complex of the Islamic State group.

A GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast weapon on display outside the Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (Wikipedia/Fl295/public domain)

Hajizadeh told FARS that the Iranian equivalent would allow his country to challenge the US-led coalition fighting in Iraq and Syria.

“The Americans, among others, have come to Iraq and Syria to disintegrate them, but what eventually happened was Iran’s will,” he said in an apparent reference to gains made by the Iranian-backed Syrian government and various Shiite militia groups active in the two countries. “I see no army in the world to be on a par with the IRGC.”

Hajizadeh’s comments come at a sensitive time for the Iran, with US President Donald Trump signaling he is considering backing out of the 2015 nuclear deal between six world powers and Tehran.

In the last several months, Trump has indicated he could opt not to certify that Iran is complying with the deal when he is next slated to report to Congress in October, despite International Atomic Energy Agency investigators and America’s own intelligence community saying it is abiding by the letter of the pact.

Then presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks with journalists at a rally against the Iran nuclear deal at the US Capitol, September 9, 2015. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images via JTA)

On Thursday, Trump waived wide-ranging economic sanctions against Iran’s oil, trade and financial sectors.

Yet, the US Treasury Department also imposed fresh sanctions on 11 Iranian entities for their alleged support of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Tehran’s ballistic missile program and other programs to conduct cyberattacks and support terrorism.

On Friday US National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said that Iran will be the major focus of this week’s summit between Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“While their conversations will be wide-ranging, we expect that Iran’s destabilizing behavior, including its violation of the sovereignty of nations across the Middle East, to be a major focus,” McMaster said.

Netanyahu is reportedly set to present Trump with a specific formula for either scrapping the historic deal signed by the Barack Obama administration or amending it.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

‘Netanyahu to present Trump with specific plan to nix or fix Iran nuke deal’

September 17, 2017

Source: ‘Netanyahu to present Trump with specific plan to nix or fix Iran nuke deal’ | The Times of Israel

At upcoming meeting in New York, Israeli PM set to raise proposal for canceling or amending historic 2015 accord, according to TV report

By TOI staff and Agencies September 16, 2017, 9:04 pm
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, and US President Donald Trump, right, speak at Ben Gurion International Airport prior to the latter's departure from Israel on May 23, 2017. (Koby Gideon/GPO)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, and US President Donald Trump, right, speak at Ben Gurion International Airport prior to the latter’s departure from Israel on May 23, 2017. (Koby Gideon/GPO)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to present US President Donald Trump in their meeting Monday on the sidelines of the 72nd annual session of the United Nations General Assembly with a proposal for rolling back the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran signed by the Obama administration and other P5+1 powers.

According to a Channel 2 report Saturday, Netanyahu is preparing a specific formula for either scrapping the historic deal or amending it. His proposal will detail how “to cancel or at the very least introduce significant changes” to the accord, the report said.

Earlier this week, Netanyahu said Israel wanted to see the two-year-old deal — which offered Iran relief from punishing sanctions in exchange for having it roll back its nuclear program — either amended or canceled altogether.

“Our position is straightforward. This is a bad deal. Either fix it — or cancel it. This is Israel’s position,” said Netanyahu in Buenos Aires on Tuesday during a trip to Latin America.

Netanyahu rejected recent reports claiming that Israel and Saudi Arabia were no longer interested in scrapping the landmark deal. Reuters reported Tuesday that US officials familiar with discussions about the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), said Israel and Saudi Arabia would rather the pact remain intact.

Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with Trump on Monday in New York, a day before the Israeli leader is to give his annual address before the General Assembly. Netanyahu indicated on Friday that his speech will focus on the stance that Israel would not tolerate an Iranian presence on its northern border with Syria, now in its seventh year of a brutal civil war.

Trump is expected to give his first speech before the UN body on the same day.

The Netanyahu-Trump meeting will be held amid growing speculation that the US president will declare Iran not to be in compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. Trump is due to decide before October 15 whether Iran has breached the agreement, and critics fear he may abandon the accord altogether.

A US pullout would effectively bring the agreement to an end.

The meeting will be the two leaders’ fourth together since Trump assumed office. The two met once in February when the Israeli premier visited the White House, and twice in May when the American president traveled to the region, which included a two-day stop in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Washington on Thursday waived nuclear-related sanctions on Iran but slapped new ones on 11 companies and individuals accused of engaging in cyber attacks against US banks.

During the 2016 US presidential campaign, Trump called the nuclear accord “the worst deal ever” and vowed to tear it up upon taking office. Trump has since moderated his tone, although he said last month Iran is “not in compliance with the agreement” and said he did not believe he would again declare Iran to be abiding by the deal come October.

Israel has been a vocal opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, often clashing with the Obama administration in the lead-up to the signing of the controversial accord and its aftermath.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

Iran in focus as Benjamin Netanyahu begins diplomatic week in New York

September 17, 2017

Source: Iran in focus as Benjamin Netanyahu begins diplomatic week in New York – Israel News – Jerusalem Post

ByHerb Keinon
September 17, 2017 07:57
Netanyahu ends Latin America visit in Mexico, where he lauds “great friendship” between Mexico and Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara Netanyahu en route to South America, September

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara Netanyahu en route to South America, September 10, 2017.. (photo credit:AVI OHAYON – GPO)

Netanyahu advised reporters accompanying him on his trip to wait until after his meeting with the president before drawing conclusions regarding the US policy toward the Islamic Republic.

A scarecrow model is set on fire by Iranian demonstratorson during the annual pro-Palestinian rally marking Al-Quds Day in Tehran, Iran, June 23, 2017. NAZANIN TABATABAEE YAZDI/ TIMA VIA REUTERS

A scarecrow model is set on fire by Iranian demonstratorson during the annual pro-Palestinian rally marking Al-Quds Day in Tehran, Iran, June 23, 2017. NAZANIN TABATABAEE YAZDI/ TIMA VIA REUTERS

While Thursday’s decision in Washington to extend sanctions relief as mandated by the 2015 nuclear agreement indicates that Trump has no immediate intention to carry out his campaign pledge and scuttle the accord, the US is taking a much firmer stand than before regarding Tehran’s ballistic missile program and overall destabilization of the region.

Netanyahu said during his trip to Latin America that Israel’s position remains the same: either change the agreement or scrap it.

The diplomatic process with the Palestinians will also feature prominently in the premier’s meeting with Trump, who also is expected to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas this week.

Israeli diplomatic officials accompanying the prime minister discussed a “diplomatic war of attrition” the Palestinians were waging, noting that their decision not to push forward last week with their bid to join the World Tourism Organization came following intensive US pressure, and that they will now ask for something in return.

As Netanyahu readies for his meeting with Trump, one senior diplomatic official said that while he is interested in an agreement with Abbas, he does not see one anywhere on the horizon.

After four days in Argentina, Colombia and Mexico where the Palestinian issue did not feature either in the public declarations of the three presidents Netanyahu met or in their private meetings, that situation is expected to change dramatically in New York.

Shortly before Netanyahu landed in New York on Friday, the Israeli Consulate reopened after a package containing white powder and an English-language threat to the prime minister was delivered there earlier in the day.

The Israeli Consulate was closed and sealed shut as inspections were made and the staff was ordered to remain indoors until the reopening.

The prime minister flew to New York after a day in Mexico City where he met with President Enrique Peña Nieto and said the diplomatic issue would not have been raised in that meeting had he not done so himself.

“I raised the Palestinian issue,” he said in a briefing with reporters, explaining that he then gave a brief talk to Peña Nieto and almost half his cabinet at the meeting on how neither the conflict with the Palestinians nor the settlements were at the heart of the problems plaguing the Middle East.

Had he not raised the matter, he said, it would not have even come up.

Wrapping up his visit to Latin America, Netanyahu said the fact that the presidents of three important countries publicly embraced Israel is a sign of the Jewish state’s rising stature in the region and the world.

“The leaders themselves are the best seismographs,” Netanyahu told reporters after a four-hour meeting with Peña Nieto at the Los Pinos presidential residence in Mexico City on Thursday. “They understand that not only does the public not have a problem with their public embrace of Israel, but it has benefits. There is a lot of sympathy [for Israel],” he said.

Netanyahu, who characterized Israel’s relationship with Mexico as a “great friendship,” said he was not surprised by the warmth of his reception in Latin America. What did surprise him, he said, was the lack of protest and criticism in the media, especially because he was warned beforehand that Israel has a problem in Latin America.

“Maybe in Venezuela,” he quipped, but not in the countries he visited.

A tweet Netanyahu posted in January that was interpreted as support for Trump’s desire to build a wall with Mexico and infuriated the Mexican government and the Jewish community did not come up when the prime minister and Peña Nieto held a press conference, with one senior Israeli diplomatic saying the two countries have “turned the page” on the issue.

It also did not prevent hundreds of members of the 45,000-strong Jewish community from giving Netanyahu a rousing ovation when he spoke Thursday at the local Jewish center.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuand wfie Sara at an event for the Jewish community in Mexico City, September 14, 2017. AVI OHAYON - GPOPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuand wfie Sara at an event for the Jewish community in Mexico City, September 14, 2017. AVI OHAYON – GPO

Following his meeting with Netanyahu, Peña Nieto thanked the Jewish community for its “valuable contributions to the economic, social and cultural development of the country.”

He also said that its members were an important source of employment for the country.

According to Jewish community figures, Jews comprise 0.35% of the Mexican population, but provide 10% of the country’s jobs.

During the leaders’ meeting, the two sides agreed to upgrade and modernize the free-trade agreement between their countries, which is outdated and does not provide any provisions for new developments such as e-trade.

They also signed agreements governing cooperation between the countries’ space programs, and in tourism, aviation and international development.

Peña Nieto asked Israel to become involved in development programs in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, in what is called Central America’s Northern Triangle. Mexico and the US are cooperating in providing development aid there in an effort to stabilize their economies and prevent migration northward.

During his statement alongside Peña Nieto, Netanyahu apologized for this being the first time an Israeli prime minister ever visited the country, saying it was “an unpardonable lapse, but we want pardon.”

Netanyahu said this visit corrected that “historic lapse because Mexico is a great country.It’s one of the world’s great economies, it’s a great nation, a great people, a great culture. We want to be close, even closer to Mexico, and this is what this meeting signifies.”

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment