Posted tagged ‘Kerry’

Diplomacy: Looking for ways to douse the spark

October 23, 2015

Diplomacy: Looking for ways to douse the spark, Jerusalem PostHerb Keinon, October 23, 2015

(They “dance around in a ring and suppose, but the secret sits in the middle and knows,” with apologies to Robert Frost. — DM)

ShowImage (15)Netanyahu and Kerry meeting in Berlin. (photo credit:AMOS BEN-GERSHOM/GPO)

And now the diplomatic dance begins, again.

After three weeks of runaway terrorism on the streets, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon arrived for a quick visit midweek; US Secretary of State John Kerry – after meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday in Berlin – is expected to meet on Saturday with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Amman, along with Jordan’s King Hussein; EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini is doing the same; and the French are floating various proposals to take to the UN Security Council.

All predictable, all the traditional steps taken in a time of Mideast crisis.

Ban did what Ban does in these situations – he comes, meets with both sides, issues platitudes about the need for both sides to show restraint, and declares how important it is to keep that light of hope burning.

The UN secretary-general dutifully fulfilled his role in the script. Netanyahu obliged by meeting politely with Ban, who then went on to meet politely with Abbas, to what appears to be absolutely no effect. It’s a dance whose steps – and way of ending – are known far in advance.

Jerusalem does not take Ban’s efforts overseriously, as the organization that he heads is seen as a big part of the problem rather than the solution.

Witness Wednesday’s one-sided resolution adopted by UNESCO, the UN’s cultural heritage agency, condemning “Israeli aggression” on the Temple Mount and declaring that the Jewish holy sites of Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs are an “integral part of Palestine.”

Similar disdain, to a certain extent, characterizes Israel’s view of the EU’s efforts. Netanyahu will listen to Mogherini, and lament both Abbas’s incitement and the EU’s acceptance of it, but will place little stock in the EU’s ability to play a constructive role in calming down the situation.

Brussels is not seen in Jerusalem as a particularly honest broker on all things Palestinian but, rather, as the institution that nurtures – perhaps more than any other – the hope among the Palestinians that if they press long enough and hard enough, the international community will deliver to them what they publicly say they want: a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 borders with east Jerusalem as its capital, and some kind of “fair and just” accommodation for the refugees.

The very skeptical Israeli view of the EU in any diplomatic process is reinforced by steps taken by France, which this week considered bringing a resolution to the UN Security Council to place international observers on the Temple Mount.

This idea, which Israel would never accept, and which even Jordan and the Palestinians have apparently rejected, is born of a burning French diplomatic desire to always do something, anything, in the Mideast – especially when there seems to be a stalemate or vacuum.

It is also the product of sour relations currently prevailing between Paris and Jerusalem, as well as a lingering French hope for the internationalization of Jerusalem – for the establishment of a corpus separatum in Jerusalem under a special international regime – which France hopes to be a part of.

So with the UN out, the EU out, and France out, that leaves the US.

But it is not as if Jerusalem is harboring any hopes that Kerry will be able to ride in and save the day.

From Jerusalem’s perspective the US track record in the region is not sterling, and though it appreciates Washington’s desire to help, there is little illusion that high-profile, high-level meetings will have any immediate effect on the ground.

And while Jerusalem is not waiting for Kerry with baited breath, it was clear from the beginning that he would get involved. An uptick in terrorism and violence leads to a well-worn pattern in Washington: condemnations of the terrorism, then statements that anger Israel about proportionality or settlements, followed by calls for restraint on both sides, and then meetings with the leaders.

But this current spurt of terrorism and violence is different from previous rounds, in that there is no identifiable organization – such as Hamas and Fatah’s Tanzim militia – to hold directly responsible for the bloodshed. This time it is more amorphous, individual terrorists incited by calls for Jewish blood on Facebook and from various leaders, going out to kill Jews.

The lack of a clear organizational structure behind the terrorism makes it more difficult for the security services to stop, because it is much more difficult to gather intelligence on an individual who grabs a knife and goes out to kill than on attacks directed by an organization.

Also, there is not one person seemingly in control who may be pressured to cease the violence.

It is not as if Kerry can talk to Abbas and convince him to issue a call to his people to “hold your horses,” and the horses will obediently be held. Abbas does not have anything near that type of control – many of the horses simply do not heed him.

This time around, thankfully, neither the State Department nor Kerry are inflating expectations; they are not talking about Kerry’s separate meeting with the leaders as a potential breakthrough for restarting the diplomatic talks and bringing a peace deal in a number of months.

Washington, it should be remembered, is still engaged in its own Mideast policy reassessment, a policy reassessment brought about after the breakdown of the Kerry-led peace talks in April 2014, and re-announced after Netanyahu’s preelection statement – which he later retracted – of less than full fealty to the notion of a two-state solution.

Rather, this time the bar has been set low, with the goals very limited.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Wednesday that the meetings would deal with “practical ways in which political breathing space can be had to help end the violence.”

No overreaching there, just looking for breathing space. The breathing space that Kirby mentioned but did not elaborate upon is likely to be an attempt – in discussions with Netanyahu, Abbas and especially Jordan’s King Abdullah – to come up with a clear set of procedures for governing the Temple Mount.

The Temple Mount has – like so many times over the last century – been the spark to violence against Jews. To douse the fire, there will be some need to deal with the spark, but this has to be done in a way where both Israel and the Palestinians can say that they have not given in.

In recent days Kerry has spoken about the need for clarity. Everyone talks about the status quo on the Temple Mount, but there is little understanding of what that entails.

“Israel understands the importance of the status quo and… our objective is to make sure that everyone understands what that means,” Kerry said at press conference on Monday in Madrid, adding that “we are not seeking a new change or outsiders to come in; I don’t think Israel or Jordan wants that, and we’re not proposing it. What we need is clarity.”

The new “clarity” is expected to involve enhanced coordination and cooperation with Jordan, possibly even more Jordanian representatives on the site, in such a way as to undercut the spurious charge that Israel is somehow threatening al-Aksa Mosque.

Former National Security Council head Yaakov Amidror said in an Israel Radio interview this week that he had little expectation regarding Kerry’s meeting with Netanyahu or Abbas, because the US has little impact on the Palestinians – which is true.

But the US does have leverage on Jordan, and this leverage may now be needed to get Abdullah to take a greater role in day-to- day administration and involvement at the site – if only as a way to suck the oxygen out of the lie propelling the current round of terrorism: that Israel is endangering al-Aksa.

Lies, lies and whoppers in the Middle East

October 23, 2015

Lies, lies and whoppers in the Middle East, Washington Times, Wesley Pruden, October 22, 2015

10222015_2015-10-22-19-23-278201_c0-0-1800-1049_s561x327Secretary of State John Kerry. (Associated Press

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

A diplomat, as any deputy assistant associate undersecretary could tell you, is a public servant paid to lie for his country. Lies are the hard currency in the land of the girly men.

The truth is rarely heard above the rattle and din of the teacups in the lounges where the masters of the art gather to collect their strength after a long day’s work in the vineyards of falsification, where Israel usually gets the shaft plunged to the hilt.

The knife has become the weapon of choice in the Palestinian war against Israeli civilians, brandished as if it were a holy scimitar of the avenging Allah. The dean of a university in Gaza characterizes this campaign of the short knives as “military operations,” and urges that it be aimed at women and children.

“The Jews of Palestine are fair game today, even the women,” the dean, Subhi al-Yazji, a learned doctor of Koranic studies, told an interviewer on Hamas television. “Every single Jew in Palestine is a combatant — even the children, breastfed on hatred for the Palestinian people.”

Just who is promoting this villainy launched from the shadows is clear to everyone, but it’s not polite in the well-behaved precincts of the West to say so. But we can be reassured, because John Kerry, the secretary of state and the grand master of moral equivalence, is on the job. He spent four hours Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Berlin about how to “defuse” the violence. Their conversation was conducted as the knives conducted their own deadly business on the streets.

Before they sat down Mr. Kerry made the ritual condemnation of the assault on the Jews, composed of equal parts blarney and buncombe, and bravely urged an end to “all incitement and violence.” This softly worded admonition by the secretary of State naturally must include the Israelis who have done nothing but offer their Jewish flesh for the Palestinian blade. “There is no question,” said Mr. Netanyahu, “that this wave of attacks is driven directly by incitement by Hamas, incitement from the Islamist movement in Israel and incitement, I am sorry to say, from President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.”

This was plain and unvarnished, what everybody knows to be true, but for reasons best known to him President Obama and his men (and women) won’t say anything like that. Perhaps they have a fear of cold steel in the ribs, too. What Mr. Kerry offers is this can of diplomatic yah-yah from the archives of claptrap at the State Department:

“I come directly from several hours of conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu and I would characterize that conversation as one that gave me a cautious measure of optimism that there may be some things that may be in the next couple of days put on the table which would have an impact — I hope. I don’t want to be excessive in stating that, but I am cautiously encouraged.” There are a dozen lies somewhere in that thin treacle of organic gluten-free fat-added diet marshmallow, but only a diplomat could find them.

The moment cries for someone to say something real, and we get that from the secretary of state. And this: “We have to stop the incitement, we have to stop the violence.” Well, duh. He said he had talked to [Mr.] Abbas and Jordan’s King Abdullah, who are trusted to oversee the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, source of the latest Palestinian complaining. Abbas and Abdullah have assured him of their commitment to calm. Of course they do. And if you can’t trust a trusty, as a famous Southern governor caught between two fires once said, who can you trust?

The purveyors of calm work in parallel with the inciters of blood lust. This week a Jordanian teacher, from whom in other places you would expect something more, posted on the Internet a video of his 8-year-old daughter brandishing a knife, held up like a crucifix of the faith, declaring, “I want to stab a Jew.”

Mr. Netanyahu, who has no fear of saying what he thinks, nevertheless caught a little flak this week in Israel for speaking of some of the dark work of those who encouraged Hitler to proceed with the Holocaust. Hitler’s evil was unique, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem told Mr. Netanyahu, and assigning blame to others makes him a Holocaust denier. Such a “dangerous distortion” of history “downplays” the Holocaust, the leader of the opposition in the Knesset told him.

Mr. Netanyahu was speaking a perfectly obvious truth, but we’re not supposed to notice what’s going on. It’s not diplomatic.

Hillary’s Libyan Lies: Muslim Brotherhood, Terror and Dirty Money

October 22, 2015

Hillary’s Libyan Lies: Muslim Brotherhood, Terror and Dirty Money Hillary Clinton is still lying about her illegal war.

October 22, 2015

Daniel Greenfield

Source: Hillary’s Libyan Lies: Muslim Brotherhood, Terror and Dirty Money | Frontpage Mag

Hillary Clinton has only one accomplishment; the Libyan War. Bombing Libya in support of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover was Hillary’s pet project.

Obama unenthusiastically signed off on a war that he had told members of Congress “is all Secretary Clinton’s matter.”

The Pentagon fought Hillary’s illegal war every step of the way. Both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs opposed Hillary’s plan to bomb Libya. One of the Chairman’s top aides said that he did not trust the reports coming out of the State Department and the CIA, then controlled by Clinton loyalist Leon Panetta. When it was clear that the Clintonites had gotten their war on, an irritated Secretary of Defense Gates resigned after failing to stop Hillary’s war and was replaced by Panetta.

As the State Department set the military agenda, the Pentagon retaliated by taking over the diplomatic agenda attempting to arrange a ceasefire with the Gaddafi regime over Hillary’s objections.

Hillary was using the State Department to start a war while the military was trying to use diplomacy to stop a war. The Pentagon lost the power struggle and one of her minions took over the military to make sure that the Muslim Brotherhood’s Jihadists would be able to overrun another country.

Huma Abedin had beaten the Secretary of Defense.

Panetta, unlike Gates, shared Hillary’s Arab Spring agenda. After the war, he paid a visit to Tripoli and claimed that similar “uprisings” would be taking place around the Middle East, including in Syria.

Military people never stopped loathing Hillary Clinton for her war and its consequences, the usurpation of a defense matter, the Al Qaeda training camps and the abandonment of Americans in Benghazi. That came to the surface during the Democratic debate when Senator Webb challenged Clinton on Libya.

Hillary Clinton smugly recited the same old lies about Gaddafi “threatening to massacre large numbers of the Libyan people” and European allies begging her to stop a “mass genocide.”

In reality, Hillary Clinton was the source of the claim that Gaddafi was about to commit genocide. This claim had no basis in reality and defense officials quickly shot it down. But that didn’t stop Obama from claiming during his war speech that he had bombed Libya to save Benghazi from a massacre. There was no massacre in Benghazi. At least not until Obama helped make a massacre of four Americans happen.

By September, the New York Times was asking where all the dead were. Morgue records showed that the dead on both sides actually numbered in the hundreds. The International Red Cross put the number of missing persons at around a thousand. The largest mass grave found had 34 bodies.

Obama claimed that he had seen Gaddafi “kill over a thousand people in a single day.” That never happened. It never happened when Gaddafi had actually captured a rebel city before.

“Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered,” Hillary Clinton had said. That would be more than the entire number of people, combatants and civilians, who had died in the Libyan Civil War.

Gaddafi was an insane dictator, but he had never done anything on that scale, nor were his forces, which had been beaten by Chad in the Toyota War (Chad militias had fought using Toyota pickups), remotely capable of pulling off Saddam level of atrocities or he might have won the war.

Hillary Clinton claimed at the debate, “We had the Arabs standing by our side saying, ‘We want you to help us deal with Gadhafi.’” But by the second night of bombing, the Secretary-General of the Arab League had already condemned the “bombardment of civilians.”

“We did not put one single American soldier on the ground in Libya,” Hillary Clinton said. That’s technically true and also a lie. It was Panetta’s CIA people who were on the ground.

Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, two of the Americans murdered in Benghazi, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were working as contractors for the CIA. American soldiers still died in Libya. They were just officially contractors, more of the CIA’s “Sneakers on the Ground” approach that let hacks like Hillary and Obama claim that there were no American soldiers on the ground.

“The Libyan people had a free election the first time since 1951,” Hillary Clinton said. “And you know what, they voted for moderates, they voted with the hope of democracy.”

When Hillary says “moderate”, she means Islamist. The election was fake. It was rigged between the “moderate Islamist” Muslim Brotherhood and the “moderate Islamist” National Forces Alliance. While the media was repeating talking points about the fake election, fighting in Benghazi continued. But even though Hillary and Obama had used Benghazi as the basis for the war, no one was paying attention.

That would change soon enough. And before long every American would know the name Benghazi. But Benghazi was only an early warning. Before long entire Libyan cities would fall to Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Hillary closed by insisting, “Unless you believe the United States should not send diplomats to any place that is dangerous, which I do not, then when we send them forth, there is always the potential for danger and risk.”

Sending diplomats to dangerous places means providing them with adequate security.

Hillary’s State Department failed to do that. Even the whitewashed report of her cronies admitted that much. Benghazi’s compound was being protected by “moderate Islamist” terrorists who overlapped with the other “moderate Islamist” terrorists who attacked the diplomatic compound.

While Hillary’s State Department was spending fortunes on bad art, the Benghazi compound didn’t meet security standards in a city that had more terrorists than police officers.

And, best of all, the Muslim Brotherhood Martyrs of the Feb. 17 Revolution Brigade terrorists Hillary was paying to protect the ambassador, hadn’t even been paid.

Benghazi was a city that was effectively under the control of Jihadists, some of them blatantly identifying with Al Qaeda. Hillary Clinton might as well have sent Ambassador Stevens into an Al Qaeda training camp with terrorists providing his security. And that’s effectively what she did.

Her dismissive line about sending diplomats to dangerous places whitewashes what happened.

Now that we’ve cleared away Hillary’s lies, let’s get to the truth. The Libyan War, like the rest of the Arab Spring, was about empowering the Muslim Brotherhood.

And there were cruder motives in the mix.

Hillary Clinton hid emails discussing the exploitation of Libya’s oil fields. The Clintons had made an art out of merging their political and financial agendas. They had extensive ties with figures in the energy industry and the companies that dug into Libya’s energy sector, Royal Dutch Shell and BP, were Clinton Foundation donors.

Some of the deleted emails discussed this with Clinton Foundation employee Sidney Blumenthal, who was also providing Hillary Clinton with supposed intel from business interests while promising that the Libyan War would be an easy matter. Blumenthal encouraged “shock and awe” bombing in Libya.

According to Congressman Gowdy, who has been investigating the events in Benghazi, “Blumenthal pushed hard for a no-fly zone in Libya before the idea was being discussed internally by senior U.S. government officials.” He blasted Obama for being “unenthusiastic about regime change in Libya.”

Blumenthal called for providing the Jihadists with “armor piercing weapons” and called Secretary of Defense Gates a “mean, vicious little prick” who is “losing” the debate. Blumenthal also offered the very specific “national interest” argument that Obama would later echo, suggesting that he was unknowingly repeating the talking points of a man he loathed which had been handed to him by Hillary Clinton.

He also told Hillary Clinton that the war had to be ramped up or Obama would lose the election.

Having dragged Obama into Hillary’s war, Blumenthal was now pushing Hillary to blackmail him with the threat of losing the election if he didn’t escalate the conflict. Meanwhile he was pursuing his interest in getting the Libyans to pay for military training from a private military company he was linked to.

The entire nightmarish mess of Democratic conspiracy theories about Iraq, Blood for Oil, politicians fighting wars to win elections, corporate conflicts of interest and even private military companies are all here and no one will touch it. A roster of Democratic candidates still running against the Iraq War won’t talk about an illegal dirty regime change war that took place with their backing and support.

Bernie Sanders, who sputters incoherently about the Iraq War, co-sponsored the Senate resolution supporting a No Fly Zone in Libya. This was the Senate resolution that Obama exploited as a fig leaf of Senate approval for his illegal war.

Senator Sanders can’t criticize Hillary’s illegal war because he helped make it happen.

Hillary’s war has been an unmitigated disaster. Her lies about the war have been disproven. But not even the Democrats running against her are ready to hold her accountable for it.

Kerry urges Benjamin Netanyahu to ‘move beyond rhetoric’

October 22, 2015

Kerry urges Netanyahu to ‘move beyond rhetoric’ and take steps to end wave of violence

October 22, 2015, 9:50 am

Source: Kerry urges Benjamin Netanyahu to ‘move beyond rhetoric’ and take steps to end wave of violence – Israel News – Jerusalem Post

US Secretary of State John Kerry met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Berlin on Thursday, saying that the time had come for Israel and the Palestinians to agree on the steps that must be taken to “move beyond condemnations and rhetoric” and stop the current round of terror attacks plaguing Israeli cities.

Kerry was beginning a four-day trip to Europe and the Middle East aimed at deescalating the violence which has seen ten Israelis killed in terror attacks and dozens of Palestinian attackers and rioters killed by Israeli forces.

Netanyahu reiterated his assertion that the current wave of terror is “driven directly” by incitement from Hamas, the Islamic Movement of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas.

Added by JK

Attacks on Israelis will go on, Hamas chief says in South Africa
At Cape Town rally organized by ruling African National Congress party, Khaled Mashaal urges continued terror attacks
http://www.timesofisrael.com/attacks-on-israelis-will-go-on-hamas-chief-says-in-south-africa/

I want to thank you and the US for condemning the terrorist attacks against Israel, for standing up for our right of self defense,” the prime minister told Kerry.

“We remain committed to the status quo. We’re the ones that protect all the holy sites,” Netanyahu said, refuting Palestinian claims that Israel is seeking to change the status quo at the Temple Mount.

“Israel is acting to protect its citizens as any democracy would in the face of such wanton and relentless attacks,” he said in response to charges that Israel has used excessive force in stopping the attacks.

“To generate hope, we have to stop terrorism. To stop terrorism, we have to stop the incitement,” he stated.

“It’s time that the international community told President Abbas to stop the incitement and hold him accountable for his words and his deeds,” he added.

Kerry said that “it is absolutely critical to end all incitement, to end all violence and to find a road forward to build the possibility which is not there today for a larger process.”

“So we have to go steps, but today you and I can really rekindle that process,” he added.

Kerry said that he had spoken to Jordan’s King Abdullah and Abbas, and had received the impression that “everyone wants this to deescalate.”

The ‘Jerusalem Awakening’

October 19, 2015

The ‘Jerusalem Awakening’ Front Page MagazineRichard L. Cravatts, October 19, 2015

pa

The carnage in Jerusalem and other parts of Israel continued this week with an increased ferocity and barbarity, with stabbings, shooting, bombings, car ramming, rocket attacks, and other assaults on Israeli citizens claiming the lives of five Israelis and twenty-five Palestinians in the past two weeks alone. While the violence intensifies and seems to be spiraling out of control, not only touching Jerusalem but also the West Bank, Gaza, and other Israeli towns, officials are intent on identifying the inspiration for the latest escalation of jihad against Jews.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was quick to assign blame, not to the perpetrators of the deadly attacks—psychotic young men acting in the name of Allah to purge the land of Jews—but to the victims themselves, Israelis. Speaking at the Belfer Center at Harvard University, Kerry disingenuously observed in a question and answer session after his talk that, “There’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years and there’s an increase in the violence because there’s this frustration that’s growing.” Blaming the settlements for being an obstacle to peace is a favorite refrain for this administration, of course, and it puts the responsibility for the outbreak of violence squarely on Israel, and Netanyahu, instead of where it more justifiably belongs: namely, with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority, and a culture of death where “resistance” and martyrdom are promoted as virtuous rather than inhumanly counterproductive.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was more accurate in identifying the inspiration of the current uprising, this so-called “Jerusalem Awakening,” that has increased the tension of everyday life for Israelis and Arabs alike. At a weekly cabinet meeting Netanyahu correctly observed that Israel is “. . . in the midst of a wave of terrorism originating from systematic and mendacious incitement regarding the Temple Mount – incitement by Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and the Islamic Movement in Israel.”

Secretary Kerry may well wish that it is the dreaded settlements that have motivated young Arab men to begin indiscriminately slashing and shooting Jews, but the prime minister’s view is clearly more accurate, and more believable, given PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s own words of warning when he spoke at the UN at the end of September. He was, he said before the morally-challenged audience, “. . . compelled to sound the alarm about the grave dangers of what is happening in Jerusalem, where extremist Israeli groups are committing repeated, systematic incursions upon Al-Aqsa Mosque . . , while preventing Muslim worshipers from accessing and entering the Mosque at those times and freely exercising their religious rights.”

These actions, Abbas claimed, are “in direct violation of the status quo since before 1967 and thereafter, [and are] aggravating the sensitivities of Palestinians and Muslims everywhere. I call on the Israeli government, before it is too late, to cease its use of brutal force to impose its plans to undermine the Islamic and Christian sanctuaries in Jerusalem, particularly its actions at Al-Aqsa Mosque, for such actions will convert the conflict from a political to religious one[emphasis added], creating an explosive in Jerusalem and in the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory.”

Putting aside the laughable contention that Muslims care even the slightest bit about the sanctity and protection of Christian holy places, the claim that Israel is trying to destroy or undermine mosques on the Temple Mount is an oft-repeated charge, used by Arabs against Israel as a way of inciting hatred toward Jews for their alleged perfidiousness and guile. Israeli columnist Nadav Shragrai has referred to this tactic as the “Protect the Al Aqsa Mosque” blood libel—a propaganda tool that has been employed since the 1920s to cause mistrust of Jews when the then-Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, Hitler’s Middle East ally, exhorted Muslims everywhere to defend Islamic holy places in Jerusalem from the pernicious Jews, causing riots, bloodshed, and 133 Jewish deaths.

Abbas was surprisingly candid in admitting that the incursion onto the Temple Mount, where Jews and Christians have traditionally been barred from worshiping, changed the nature of the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis from a political debate to a religious war. Of course, a holy war against Israelis specifically, and Jews in general, has been a core tenet of Islam since Jews rejected Mohammed in the seventh century, and animates the foundational charters of the PA and Hamas as part of a theological responsibility devout Muslims feel to purify the world through the extirpation of the rapacious, thieving Jews.

The perceived assault by Israel on the Al Aqsa Mosque, and the Temple Mount in general, then, is yet another affirmation to the Muslim world that the scheming Jews seek to weaken and eventually destroy the House of Islam—here in Jerusalem at Islam’s third holiest spot—and replace it with a Third Temple. What seem like random, “lone wolf” attacks on Israeli civilians at bus stops and on streets are actually thought of as part of a religiously-inspired war in the defense of Islam, a holy war in the form of jihad.

The Hamas Charter, for instance, proclaims that the circumstances through which the “Zionist regime” was established through the perfidy of the Jews is, in the honor/shame culture of the Middle East, an open wound on the Islamic world, a situation which demands jihad to restore the sanctity of Islamic land and rid the world of the festering sore that is Israel. “[T]he land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Islamic religious endowment] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day,” the Charter states. “The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem,” stipulating that jihad is not only a tactical choice for ridding Palestine of the Zionist interloper, it is seen as a religious duty; in fact, it is demanded of true believers.

The Charter’s Article 7 also contains the oft-cited hadith which exhorts Muslims to seek out and murder Jews specifically as a sacred obligation. Islamic teaching depicts Jews as the descendants of “monkeys and pigs,” treacherous deceivers, manipulative barbarians and thieves who attempted to murder the prophets, and who are satanic, murderous, unlawful occupiers of holy Muslim land whose elimination is sacralized in Koranic and hadithic precepts.  “. . . The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes,” Article 7 reads. “The Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: ‘The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: “Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,” except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.’”

It is no surprise that in a culture marinated in Jew-hatred, where Jews are debased, portrayed as a subhuman species, bacteria, a disease, fomenters of wars and strife—in fact, are portrayed as the enemies of Allah and mankind—the extermination of Jews, especially in defense of Islam and its holy places, would therefore become not only a reasonable goal but a desired outcome. Who would not murder Jews if they pose such threats to mankind and Islam specifically? Who would ever make peace with the eternal enemies of Allah, let alone negotiate a peace and borders for a new Arab state with them? And would not those jihadis who willingly sacrifice themselves to murder Jews in the name of Allah be celebrated as shahids, martyrs, and have town squares and summer camps named for them and their bravery, exactly as they are by Palestinian leadership now?

If Jews are the most wretched of humans, and the “liberation” of all of Palestine—including the Temple Mount, including Jerusalem, including all of Israel—is considered a sacred duty and religious obligation, then the murder of Jews must, and will, continue in this millennial apocalyptic struggle in which devote Muslims see themselves playing a central role.

Abbas’s disingenuous and lethal tactics in inciting rage against Jewish “interlopers” and “defilers” of Muslim holy ground on the Temple Mount are not new. Scholars and archeologists remember, for instance, the howls of outrage that arose from the Arab world in February 2007, when Israeli authorities initiated a project to rebuild a ramp to the Mugrabi Gate, an entrance to the Temple Mount plaza and the Al Aqsa Mosque platform that had been damaged in an earlier storm.  Riots and protests began immediately, with accusations against Israel coming from throughout the Arab world for its “scheme” and treachery in digging under and threatening to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque itself. The committee of Muslim scholars in Jordan’s Islamic Action Front, for one, “urge[d] … jihad to liberate Al Aqsa and save it from destruction and sabotage from Jewish usurpers”—a spurious claim, since construction was taking place well outside the Mount platform, some 100 meters from the mosque, and clearly posed no possible threat.

But false irredentist claims, Islamic supremacism which compels Jews and Christians to live in dhimmitude under Muslim control, and an evident cultural and theological disregard for other faiths— while troubling in the battle over sovereignty in Jerusalem—are not, according to Dore Gold, Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations, the most dangerous aspects of a diplomatic capitulation which would allow the Palestinians control holy places and to claim a shared Jerusalem. In his engaging book, The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City, Gold pointed to a far more troubling aspect: in their desire to accede to Arab requests for a presence and religious sovereignty in Jerusalem, the State Department, EU, UN member states, and Islamic apologists in the Middle East and worldwide may actually ignite jihadist impulses they seek to dampen with their well-intentioned, but defective, diplomacy.

Why? Because, as Gold explained, “In the world of apocalyptic speculation, Jerusalem has many other associations—it is the place where the messianic Mahdi [the redeemer of Islam] is to establish his capital. For that reason, some argue that it also should become the seat of the new caliphate that most Islamic groups—from the Muslim Brotherhood to al-Qaeda—seek to establish.”

In September, Abbas announced in Ramallah that “We will not forsake our country and we will keep every inch of our land,” reaffirming his belief that all of Jerusalem would, and should, be retained by the Palestinians as the capital of their new state. “Every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem is pure, every shahid [martyr] will reach paradise, and every injured person will be rewarded by God.” In facgt, the establishment of the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem is the first important step in the long-term strategy to rid the Levant of Jews and reestablish the House of Islam in all of historic Palestine. “Jerusalem’s recapture is seen by some as one of the signs that ‘the Hour’ and the end of times are about to occur,” Gold suggested. “And most importantly, because of these associations, it is the launching pad for a new global jihad powered by the conviction that this time the war will unfold according to a pre-planned religious script, and hence must succeed.”

So far from creating a political situation in which both parties—Israelis and the Palestinians—feel they have sought and received equal benefits, such negotiations and final agreements would have precisely the opposite effect: destabilizing the region and creating, not the oft-hoped for Israel and Palestine “living side by side in peace,” but an incendiary cauldron about to explode into an annihilatory, jihadist rage. Those in the West who are urging Israel “to redivide Jerusalem by relinquishing its holy sites,” Dore cautioned, “may well believe that they are lowering the flames of radical Islamic rage, but in fact they will only be turning up those flames to heights that have not been seen before.” If Kerry’s State Department and other Western diplomats are intent on mollifying the Arab street by pressuring Israel to divide Jerusalem as a peace offering to the Palestinians, it may well be setting into motion the exact opposite result—a jihadist, apocalyptic movement invigorated by the misguided diplomacy of the West that, once more, asks Israel to sacrifice its security and nationhood so that Islamists can realize their own imperial and theological ambitions at the Jewish state’s expense.

Palestinian Authority demands end to Israel’s ‘terrorism, incitement and summary executions’ – Arab-Israeli Conflict

October 18, 2015

Palestinian Authority demands end to Israel’s ‘terrorism, incitement and summary executions’

Source: Palestinian Authority demands end to Israel’s ‘terrorism, incitement and summary executions’ – Arab-Israeli Conflict – Jerusalem Post

Video added by JK

Danon to UNSC: Abbas ‘Brainwashing Children with Hatred’

Meanwhile, PA officials said no date has been set for a meeting between PA President Mahmoud Abbas and US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Kerry is scheduled to meet with Netanyahu later this week in Germany.

The PA Foreign Ministry said that the “summary executions” were a sign of “growing terrorism, racism and extremism” among IDF soldiers and settlers.

The ministry said that the Palestinians have begun documenting Israeli “summary executions” and “incitement” in order to file a complaint against Israel with the International Criminal Court.

It repeated the call for an international commission of inquiry into Israeli “crimes” against Palestinians.

The ministry claimed that 18-year-old Fadel Qawassmeh, who was killed in Hebron on Saturday after he tried to stab a settler, was an innocent man who had been “executed in cold blood.” It accused IDF soldiers of placing a knife near the body of Qawassmeh after he was shot to make it look as if this “crime” was an “act of self-defense.”

PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah urged the Quartet members – US, Russia, EU and UN – to intervene to “stop all Israeli crimes and assaults” against Palestinians. He also called for the resumption of the peace process in order to “end occupation and create a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.”

Hamdallah too accused Israel of killing “innocent Palestinians, especially women and children.” He also denounced Israel for “inciting” against the Palestinians.

Cartoon of the day

October 18, 2015

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

ankles-01

United Nations Apologists for Deadly Palestinian Violence

October 18, 2015

United Nations Apologists for Deadly Palestinian Violence

By Joseph A. Klein

Bio and Archives October 18, 2015

Source: United Nations Apologists for Deadly Palestinian Violence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the same day as Palestinians torched a site containing Joseph’s Tomb in the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank city of Nablus, the United Nations Security Council held an “emergency” session to address the escalating violence in Jerusalem and the West Bank.  The October 16th meeting was called by Jordan, a non-permanent member of the Security Council. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed his willingness to meet with the Palestinian leadership and resume peace talks immediately without preconditions, in order to bring calm to the region. The Palestinian leadership’s response was to have Jordan act as their promoter-in-chief and call on the Security Council to hold the “emergency” meeting for the purpose essentially of condemning Israel and rationalizing the Palestinian killing spree.

Mr. Tayé-Brook Zerihoun, Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs, briefed the Security Council on the latest developments. Although strongly condemning the attack on Joseph’s Tomb, Mr. Zerihoun tried to explain away the wave of Palestinian violence in general as stemming from the “persistence of the occupation and the diminishing prospects of achieving Palestinian aspirations for statehood.” He also threw in the “continued and expanding settlement activities” as contributing “to the anger and frustration driving the violence we are seeing today.” Finally, he added the widespread unfounded fears in the Muslim world that “Israel is aiming to change the status quo at the holy sites.”

There is no justification whatsoever for random stabbings of innocent civilians including children, women and the elderly. But that is exactly what Palestinian assailants have been doing while the so-called “international community” looks the other way. Israel has every right to use whatever means of restraint it deems necessary to protect its own civilians from such harm. Indeed, that is the first obligation of any responsible state – to defend its own citizens.  Yet vacuous phrases such as “collective punishment” and “violations of international law” are thrown at Israel for trying to contain the violence instigated by Palestinian thugs.

Mr. Zerihoun acknowledged the “impact of social media and irresponsible rhetoric” in playing “a dramatic role in escalation.” However, he failed to reference the incontrovertible evidence that the abuse of social media and irresponsible rhetoric to incite violence are coming almost exclusively from the Palestinian side, not the Israeli side. Instead, Mr. Zerihoun disgracefully indulged in the UN’s typical moral equivalence narrative, saying that “both sides have much to be blamed for.”

As just one example of the incitement to violence appearing on social media posted by Palestinians or their sympathizers, the following tweet was posted recently under the hashtag “The Intifada Has Started”: “There is no greater reward in Islam than the one given for jihad, and there is no greater reward than the one given for #Slaughtering_the_Jews… Kill them wherever you find them.” (Source: The Middle East Media Research Institute [MEMRI])

Tutorials on how to most effectively stab Jews to death

There are also tutorials on how to most effectively stab Jews to death. For instance, in a tweet posted from an individual in Gaza under the hashtag ” Poison The Knife Before You Stab,” the following ghastly advice was offered: “Dip [your] knife in an active poison before carrying out [a stabbing], so that even if the knife does not manage [to kill], the poison will do the job.” (Source: MEMRI)

Another gives elaborate instructions on how to stab a Jew, illustrated by a graphic anatomical diagram with protruding knives.

The issue used on social media to fire up the Palestinian assailants involves the false rumors about alleged Israeli plans to change the status quo at the Temple Mount or, as Muslims refer to it, Haram al-Sharif. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that Israel is fully committed to maintaining the status quo at the compound. But that has not stopped exploitation of the false rumors by social media and by Palestinian leaders including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas’s lies and incitements to violence

Here is one recent example of the big lie propagated by Abbas, delivered in a speech on Palestinian TV on October 14th:

“These days Israel’s hostile attack on our Palestinian people, its soil and its holy sites is intensifying, and the savage racism in its ugly form adds hideousness and repulsiveness to the occupation. These pose a threat to peace and stability and herald the lighting of the fuse of a religious conflict that will spark an all-consuming conflagration not only in the [Middle East] region but in the entire world.”

“We say explicitly and unequivocally that we will not agree to a change in the status quo in the blessed Al-Aqsa and we will not allow Israel to carry out any plot intended to damage its sanctity and its purely Islamic [character]. The right [over Al-Qasa] is our exclusive right – Palestinians and Muslims everywhere. We seek rights, justice and peace. We have attacked nobody and we will not agree to attacks on our people, our homeland and our holy sites.” (Source: MEMRI)

Abbas also lied in accusing Israel of “executing” in cold blood a 13 year old “child.” The Palestinian boy is in fact alive and being treated in an Israeli hospital. And he was no innocent victim caught in the crossfire. He had stabbed an Israeli boy his own age who was riding along on his bicycle.

Abbas’s lies and incitements to violence are to be expected. That’s what Palestinian leaders do. However, even worse, the Palestinian leaders are getting cover for their lies from the so-called “international community” as represented at the United Nations. For example, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein blamed the escalating tension on various Israeli actions, including “the ongoing settlement expansion” and “recent restrictions imposed by the Israeli authorities on Palestinian worshippers wishing to access the Al-Aqsa compound.”

While other UN officials such as Deputy Secretary Tayé-Brook Zerihoun denounce the use of social media to incite or glorify violence, there is disturbing evidence that personnel working at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are guilty of doing just that.  UN Watch has issued a report, which it sent to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and UNRWA chief Pierre Krähenbühl, compiling examples of hate-filled social media posts by individuals claiming to work for UNRWA. Here is a sampling from the UN Watch report:

  1. “Stab Zionist Dogs” – caption to a cartoon posted by self-describe d “Projects Support Assistant at UNRWA”
  2. Video demonstrating use of guns, knives and Molotov cocktails – posted by individual who said he “works at UNRWA”
  3. Video of “mosque sermon in which Sheikh Abu Rajab pulled out a knife and, with violent stabbing motions, exhorted Palestinians to murder Jews in the name of Islam” – posted by self-described “teacher at UNRWA”
  4. “Mohammed Assaf, UNRWA’s ‘Youth Ambassador’ and most famous personality — an ‘Arab Idol’ winner who is a key fundraiser and face of the organization, appointed by UNRWA’s Commissioner-General — has been using his UN imprimatur to glorify violence throughout his Facebook timeline” including display of “three Palestinian youths who attacked Israeli Jews.” The Palestinians are referred to as “shahid,” which means martyrs.

UNRWA might as well change its name to the Palestinian Propaganda Agency

UNRWA might as well change its name to the Palestinian Propaganda Agency. Originally established as a temporary relief agency for displaced Palestinians with the objective of resettling them in communities willing to receive them, UNRWA has morphed into a permanent Palestinian advocacy fixture. Its clientele today are some 5 million registered Palestine “refugees,” most of whom are descendants separated by several generations from the actual refugees who left their homes when Israel was created and who were supposed to have been resettled and integrated into their new communities. UNRWA intends to stay in business until as many of the 5 million so-called “refugees” as possible can return “home” from Jordan where they are already citizens of that Palestinian majority country and from Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. “Home” to UNRWA and its clientele is not limited to just a new state bordering Israel along essentially the pre-1967 lines. It also means the “refugees’” claimed “right of return” to lands encompassing pre-1967 Israel.

Against that backdrop, consider UNRWA’s rationalization for the recent spurt of Palestinian violence:

“The root causes of the conflict, among them the Israeli occupation, must be addressed. Across the occupied Palestinian territory there is a pervasive sense of hopelessness and despair resulting from the denial of rights and dignity… An entire generation of Palestinians is at risk.”

UNRWA officially condemned Israel’s response to the violence initiated by Palestinian assailants, who have been lionized by self-proclaimed UNRWA personnel in their social media postings. When Palestinian assailants die or are injured after Israeli security forces respond to quell the violence and take down the murderous aggressors, the Palestinians, we are told,  were simply acting on their understandable anger born of “hopelessness” and “frustration.” Israeli security forces are accused of using “excessive” force even as they themselves are attacked when trying to defend their own lives and the lives of innocent civilians.

Violence is not the Palestinians’ last resort, born of frustration after seeing that nothing else has worked. It is the Palestinians’ first reflexive action in dealing with their own self-inflicted plight. The Palestinians regularly lie to the world with their propaganda campaign aimed at exonerating themselves of all responsibility and at delegitimizing the Jewish State of Israel. The United Nations establishment serves as their apologist and enabler

Warning PYD, Ankara says any violation against Turkey will be reciprocated

October 15, 2015

Warning PYD, Ankara says any violation against Turkey will be reciprocated

Emine Kart – ANKARA

Thursday,October 15 2015, Your time is 13:07:07

Source: Warning PYD, Ankara says any violation against Turkey will be reciprocated – DIPLOMACY

AA Photo

AA Photo

In strongly-worded remarks, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu has recommended Syria’s Democratic Union Party (PYD) watch their step, making clear that any move aimed at Turkey would not remain unreciprocated.

“I call on [PYD leader] Salih Muslim to [use] good sense and to pull himself together. It would not be good for him if he doubts Turkey’s will and determination. Turkey has been fighting against terror and nobody should attempt to test its determination in this fight against terror,” Sinirlioğlu said on Oct. 15 in response to reported remarks by Muslim.

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu lashed out at both the United States and Russia for supplying weapons and support to the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the military wing of PYD, in its bid to fight extremist jihadists, raising concerns that the arms could be used against Turkey by the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), an affiliate of the PYD.

“At the moment, nobody can assure us that these weapons delivered to the PYD will not go to the PKK. If we find out that these weapons are taken into northern Iraq and used there, we will destroy them wherever they are,” Davutoğlu said on Oct. 12.

In remarks reported by Arbil-based BasNews agency on Oct. 14, Muslim said that Syrian Kurds won’t attack Turkey but they will strongly meet any Turkish assaults.

“The message that we have given to the PYD is clear. If they resort to any move directed at Turkey, the required penalty will be given without hesitation,” Sinirlioğlu said a joint press conference with Saudi Arabia’s Al-Jubeir following their meeting.

In Washington, following Davutoğlu’s warning, U.S. State Department Spokesperson John Kirby said the United States will continue its support for groups that are “proving effective against ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] in Syria.” His remarks on Oct. 14 were delivered in response to a question regarding U.S. aid to the PYD, which underlined a contradiction between statements by State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner and Muslim on recipients of U.S. ammunition airdrops.

While Toner argued that the ammunition was provided to Syrian Arabs, Muslim told the Turkish press that the PYD and its allies have been receiving U.S. airdrops.

Sinirlioğlu, meanwhile, didn’t touch upon any statements from Washington.

October/15/2015

PLO issues revised English version of Abbas’ ‘execution’ speech

October 15, 2015

PLO issues revised English version of Abbas’ ‘execution’ speech

Source: PLO issues revised English version of Abbas’ ‘execution’ speech – Arab-Israeli Conflict – Jerusalem Post

http://bcove.me/xwxqsq0w

http://MyPlayer.swf

The Palestine Liberation Organization on Thursday released a different version of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ speech, which was broadcast on Palestine TV on Wednesday night.

The new English version quotes Abbas as talking about the “shooting of our children in cold blood as they did with the child Ahmed Manasrah and other children from Jerusalem.”

The modified English version was released by the PLO’s Negotiations Affairs Department, which said this was a “full translation” of Abbas’s speech.

http://bcove.me/jymcr02u

However, the Arabic version of Abbas’s speech does not talk about “shooting.” Instead, Abbas is quoted as talking about the “execution of our children in cold blood, as they did with the boy Ahmed Manasrah and other children in Jerusalem and other places.”

PLO officials did not offer any explanation as to why they chose to change Abbas’s statement about Manasrah.

The English “translation” was published in response to accusations made by Israel against Abbas following his speech.

Israel accused Abbas of lying and incitement, especially with regards to his claim that Manasra, who took part in the stabbing attack at Pisgat Ze’ev in Jerusalem last Monday, had been “executed.”

A senior PA official in Ramallah accused the Israeli government of incitement against Abbas.

A statement released by Abbas’s office did not refer to the case of Manasrah. However, the statement called for an “end to Israeli incitement” – a reference to Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked’s call for closing Palestine TV.

“We call on the Israeli government to work towards ending all what aggravates violence and incitement,” the statement said.

Mahmoud Khalifa, PA Deputy Minister of Information, accused the Israeli media of serving as a mouthpiece for the Israeli government’s propaganda machine. He claimed that Israeli journalists were “reserve soldiers” in the IDF who were promoting their government’s version regarding “field executions” of Palestinians.