Posted tagged ‘Obama and Israel’

At the AP, Opinion Masquerades as Reporting

December 26, 2016

At the AP, Opinion Masquerades as Reporting, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, December 26, 2016

Yesterday the Associated Press published an article by its Jerusalem bureau chief, Josef Federman, on Benjamin Netanyahu’s reaction to President Obama’s betrayal of Israel in the U.N. The article is an opinion piece–a virulent one, in fact. It is suitable for publication in, say, the New York Times, as an anti-Israel op-ed. The piece is headlined Israel: humbled Netanyahu places hopes in Trump. It begins:

The Israeli government’s furious reaction to the U.N. Security Council’s adoption of a resolution opposing Jewish settlements in occupied territory underscores its fundamental and bitter dispute with the international community about the future of the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists that there is nothing wrong with his controversial policy of building Jewish towns in occupied areas that the Palestinians, with overwhelming world support, claim for their state. But Friday’s U.N. rebuke was a stark reminder that the rest of the world considers it a crime. The embattled leader is now placing his hopes in the incoming administration of Donald Trump, which is shaping up as the first major player to embrace Israel’s nationalist right and its West Bank settlements.

Those are perhaps defensible statements of opinion, although I would argue that they are mostly incorrect. The overall thrust of the opening paragraphs–that the entire world other than Netanyahu’s administration and “Israel’s nationalist right” considers it a “crime” for Jews to live in their Biblical home of Judea Samaria, and that Donald Trump is the first “major player” to disagree, is blatantly false.

There is much more, for example:

In a series of statements, Netanyahu has criticized the Obama Administration for letting Resolution 2334 pass Friday by abstaining, using unprecedented language that has turned a policy disagreement into a personal vendetta.

Netanyahu’s language was unprecedented? What, did he call Obama a “chickens*t”? And was not Obama’s betrayal, coordinated with the Arabs and timed to avoid accountability to Congress or the voters, the culmination of a vendetta that included interference in Israel’s election to try to defeat the Prime Minister? That wasn’t a vendetta because, I suppose, Federman welcomed it.

Federman has opinions about Trump, too:

The recent diplomatic defeat would be much more damaging if not for a potential remaining and rather major ace in Netanyahu’s hand: the incoming Trump Administration.

In a striking departure from past policy of incumbent [Ed.: sic] presidents waiting on the sidelines, Trump tried to scuttle the resolution and called for a U.S. veto. After the vote, Trump vowed that “things will be different after Jan. 20th.”

So it’s Netanyahu and Trump who have disrupted the natural order of things by smashing precedents. How about this, Mr. Federman: what’s the precedent for a lame-duck president executing a major change in American foreign policy, against the wishes of Congress and the American people, less than 30 days before leaving office, in the face of no crisis or emergency, or even a change in circumstances?

Critically, he has appointed an outspoken supporter and donor to the settlements, his longtime attorney David Friedman, as ambassador to Israel. And aides say Trump is serious about a promise to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which even many Israelis fear could spark violence. The Palestinians claim east Jerusalem, home to sensitive religious sites, as the capital of the future state to which they aspire.

Sensitive religious sites like Temple Mount, the Mount of Olives and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. Moving the U.S. embassy to Israel’s capital has been part of the Republican Party’s platform for a long time. The suggestion that having the U.S. embassy on Jerusalem, along with the Knesset, Israel’s Supreme Court and other organs of Israel’s government “could spark violence” is sheer editorializing.

Mr. Federman’s article is a typical expression of the international Left’s pro-Palestinian view of the situation in Judea and Samaria. It is, as I said, an op-ed that could easily appear in a liberal organ like the New York Times. But there is not a shred of news anywhere in it. It is merely a recitation of Federman’s opinions, with the opinions of Netanyahu, Trump and their allies erected as straw men to be struck down by others.

This conclusion was so obvious that I thought the AP must have designated the Federman article an opinion piece. But no: it went out on the wire as a straight news story. In fact, as I understand the AP’s position, it doesn’t publish opinion pieces. In fact, it cautions its reporters against expressing opinions at all:

EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION:

Anyone who works for the AP must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. They must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum, whether in Web logs, chat rooms, letters to the editor, petitions, bumper stickers or lapel buttons, and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or movements.

How about expressions of opinion in AP news stories? That, apparently, is fine, as long as the opinions are on the left.

Fearing UN vote on principles of Palestinian statehood, PM ‘reaching out to Trump’

December 26, 2016

Fearing UN vote on principles of Palestinian statehood, PM ‘reaching out to Trump’, Times of Israel, December 25, 2016

bibiandobamamouth(AFP/Pool/Atef Safadi)

TV reports: Netanyahu is wary that Kerry will set out parameters for permanent accord, then outgoing Obama administration will seek Security Council approval.

Amid escalating fallout from the UN Security Council vote Friday that condemned Israel’s settlement activities, a furious Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was reported on Sunday night to be attempting to “recruit” the incoming Trump administration and the US Congress to block a feared bid by the outgoing Obama administration to have the Security Council approve principles for a Palestinian state.

“They are spitting at us,” Netanyahu has told colleagues behind closed doors, Channel 2 news reported. “We will respond forcefully.”

Netanyahu held a 40-minute meeting with US Ambassador Dan Shapiro on Sunday evening, having summoned the envoy to explain why the US abstained in the vote on Resolution 2334, enabling it to pass 14-0, rather than vetoing it. He had earlier summoned the envoys of the 12 nations with representatives in Israel that voted for the resolution for a dressing-down at the Foreign Ministry.

Underlining Israel’s determination to press ahead with building beyond the pre-1967 lines, the Jerusalem municipality will this week approve some new homes in Ramat Shlomo and Ramot, neighborhoods captured in 1967 and subsequently annexed by Israel as part of Jerusalem, Channel 2 news reported.

Netanyahu is now reaching out to the incoming Trump administration, which takes office on January 20, and to friends in Congress, in the hope of “deterring” what he sees as further potential Obama administration-led diplomatic action against Israel, the Channel 2 report said. His aim is for the Trump team to make plain that his administration will “economically hurt” those countries that voted against Israel in the UN and that do so in the future.

bibiandfriendSeptember 25, 2016. (Kobi Gideon/GPO)

Netanyahu’s fear is that Secretary of State John Kerry will set out principles or parameters for a Palestinian state in a speech that he has said he will deliver in the next few days on his Middle East vision. The prime minister fears that, in its final days, the Obama administration will seek to have a resolution enshrining those parameters adopted by the UN Security Council, the report said.

France is to hold a conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on January 15, and Netanyahu expects that Kerry will attend, that the Middle East Quartet — the US, UN, Russia and EU — will coordinate their positions at that summit, and that they will then turn to the Security Council in the very last days of the Obama presidency, a Channel 10 report further suggested.

Such speculation was not confirmed by the Prime Minister’s Office, but Netanyahu has made public his outrage at the Obama administration several times since Resolution 2334 was passed, claiming that the president initiated and helped draft the resolution “behind Israel’s back.” He has variously called the resolution skewed, shameful and ridiculous — in part because it brands Jerusalem’s Old City, including the Temple Mount and Western Wall, “occupied Palestinian territory.”

Lighting festive Hanukkah candles at the Western Wall on Sunday night, Netanyahu stressed that Israel “cannot accept” the UN resolution, and asked: “How could they vote that [the Western Wall] is occupied territory? We were here much earlier.”

In an address on Saturday night, Netanyahu had likened President Barack Obama to the former president Jimmy Carter, who he said was “deeply hostile” to Israel. He described the vote in the Security Council as “the swan song of the old world that is anti-Israel.” Now, he said, “we are entering a new era. And as President-elect Trump said, it’s going to happen a lot faster than people think.” In this new era, it will be a lot more costly for those who seek to harm Israel, he warned.

The prime minister was also widely reported Sunday to have either canceled or opted not to schedule a meeting with Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos next month; his spokesman said no such meeting had ever been arranged. He was also said to have chosen not to schedule a meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping. He has already recalled Israel’s ambassadors from Senegal and New Zealand, two of the four countries that co-sponsored the resolution. (Israel has no ties with the other two sponsors, Malaysia and Venezuela.)

Netanyahu also reportedly told his cabinet ministers at a meeting on Sunday morning to reduce to a minimum their engagement with all the countries that voted for the resolution and with which Israel has ties — China, Russia, France, the UK, Spain, Egypt, Angola, Ukraine, Uruguay, Japan, New Zealand and Senegal. They were told to minimize any visits to those countries, and that he would not receive visits from their foreign ministers.

On Saturday, Netanyahu canceled this week’s scheduled visit to Israel of Ukraine’s prime minister.

unseccounSamantha Power, center, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, votes to abstain during a U.N. Security Council vote on condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, Friday, Dec. 23, 2016 at United Nations Headquarters. (Manuel Elias/The United Nations via AP)

Addressing the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem Sunday, Netanyahu reiterated his staunch opposition to Resolution 2334.

“We have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated its versions and insisted upon its passage,” he said.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah

December 25, 2016

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah, Dan Miller’s Blog, December 25, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

merry-christmashanukkah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We were delighted with the “surprising” election outcome this year and look forward to a reawakened America under President Trump. He — and the rest of us — have an Augean stable to muck out. We hope for a revitalized and far better America than we have seen for the past eight years and for a better world for all, with no more disgraces of this sort:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crEicBxcfwA&t=0s

Desire for a “two state solution” does not mean that there would be one state for the Jews and another for the Palestinians, living separately but in peace and harmony. Palestinian hatred for non-Muslims would not permit Israelis to live at peace in their separate state. Ultimately, if the Palestinians are successful, it would mean one Palestinian state with no Jews and few if any Christians.

Gaza, which had been controlled by the Palestinian Authority’s Fatah, has been controlled by Hamas since 2007. Despite an annual population growth rate of  2.91% (2014 est.), there are now few Christians.

In 2006, there were 5,000 Christians living in Gaza when hard-line Hamas took power from the more moderate Fatah party. Ten years later, there are just 1,100 left. . . .

In Israel, where Arab Christians have comparatively more opportunities than their Palestinian counterparts, the Christian population has stayed stable. The Christian population grew by about 5,000 in the past 20 years. Today Christians in Israel number 164,700, about 2 percent of the population, a similar ratio to past decades.

If the Palestinian Authority permits free and fair Palestinian elections throughout Israel, Hamas is quite likely to displace the PA as Israel’s “partner for peace.” Hamas is funded and otherwise supported by The Islamic Republic of Iran.

This violence is brought to you by the Religion of Peace and tolerance:

To end on a humorous but nevertheless sad note,

Again, Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah, with hopes for a better, more peaceful world with less hatred.

xmas2016

Ruff, Dan, Sunshine and Jeanie

The UN vote teaches much but changes nothing and affects even less

December 25, 2016

The UN vote teaches much but changes nothing and affects even less, Israel National News, Rabbi Prof. Dov Fischer, December 25, 2016

The so–called “Two-State Solution” died years and years ago.  No one told Obama that he helped kill it by siding so unilaterally with Arab demands against Israel.  Obama induced Mahmoud Abbas almost a decade ago to stop talks with Israel, leaving Obama and Hillary, succeeded by Kerry, to do the dirty work.  As a result, stasis ensued, and Jews continued moving in. There now are more than 750,000 Jews in Judea and Samaria, including Jews living in East Jerusalem.  The Arabs will not allow them to remain there, and Israel cannot logistically relocate them.  Israel could not even relocate or successfully re-employ 10,000 Jews from Gush Katif who were forcibly uprooted and displaced during Ariel Sharon’s Gaza give-away.  Israel cannot remove 800,000 people, place them in alternate homes and find them productive jobs.  It is logistically impossible.  Only Adolf Hitler could remove a million Jews from their homes and ‘resettle’ them. 

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

1.  The U.S. Jewish organization J Street applauded the move, saying the resolution advances the goal of a two-state solution, also a longtime U.S. objective. “This resolution conveys the overwhelming support of the international community, including Israel’s closest friends and allies, for the two-state solution, and their deep concern over the deteriorating status quo between Israelis and Palestinians and the lack of meaningful progress toward peace,” the organization said.

2.  Obama will be out in 28 days.  Had Hillary Clinton been elected, this United Nations vote now would launch a real long-term headache.  Not a disaster, but a real headache.  Nothing ever can obstruct the will of G-d, certainly not those in Migdal Bavel — the Tower of Babel — but they still can cause headaches.  However, Hillary instead is an asterisk to history.  A minuscule small asterisk, best remembered as a Public Liar who lost two “Can’t Miss” elections, first to Obama and then to Donald Trump.

3.  It was a miracle that Donald Trump ever was elected.  Even on Election Day the exit-poll reports were that he was in big trouble in Florida and elsewhere.  The miracle goes back generations.  His grandfather never wanted to be in America in the first place, but the Kaiser would not let him back in after the grandfather traveled to America without paying a mandatory fee that permitted people to leave and then to return.  So the grandfather got stuck in America against his will.  Two generations later, Trump emerges as President of the United States.  Before that, his elegant and refined daughter converts to Judaism and undertakes to live a Modern Orthodox Jewish life, and she marries into an Orthodox family with long-standing ties to Israel and with demonstrated sympathies to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

President-elect Trump has been a friend of Israel and of Jews all his life.  He has been awarded for his friendship, has been a Grand Marshall of an Israel Day Parade, has donated to Bet El.  He surrounds himself with Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews who are deep and committed friends of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.  His front-line non-Jewish supporters, including Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson, Steve Bannon, and others are huge supporters of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, and they all support moving the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  Mr. Trump is very close with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and he deeply admires scrappy, strong men who do not back down in the face of adversity.

4.  Obama now goes out — along with Kerry — with exactly the legacy they have earned but camouflaged from the public’s view.  By acting against Israel, Obama revealed his enmity and small churlish pettiness in his last month of the eight years, so that all could see and know what so many liberal Jews refused to acknowledge.  His legacy with the Jews is sealed, and his churlish pettiness will define him for the rest of his life as Jimmy Carter’s anti-Semitism has defined him.

5.  If Mr. Trump contemplated wavering on fulfilling his pledge to move the embassy, as so many other American Presidents before him have done, now he himself will be self-motivated to move the embassy — “just because” — because that is how Donald Trump is in the core of his being: “You push me, and I hit you back twice as hard.”  That is Donald Trump.  Thus, the short-term anti-Israel moment in which Israel’s enemies exult will guarantee Israel a much more satisfying long-term result.  This U.N. vote virtually assures that President Trump will move the embassy to Jerusalem.

6.  Notably — and excellently for those who love Israel — the U.N. vote also equates East Jerusalem completely with all the rest of Judea and Samaria, putting all Jewish communities there in the same category.  This is excellent because even most of the Israelis who are prepared to compromise on parts of Judea and Samaria are not prepared to compromise on East Jerusalem.  Although people anticipated that President Trump would move the embassy to West Jerusalem if he would honor his promise, this vote even may induce Trump miraculously to move the embassy to East Jerusalem.  I do not know whether he would go that far, but now he might.

7.  If Prime Minster Netanyahu wants to remain in office and not see the utter break-up of his coalition, this U.N. vote will induce the Israeli Government to expand Jewish populating of Judea and Samaria (“West Bank settlements”) as a response of defiance, particularly once Trump is in.

8.  The U.N. voted in 1975 that Zionism is Racism.  In time, they voted to retract the measure because it cost them dearly.  Mr. Trump is the sort, and he has the Republican Congress to back him, to cut American dollars to the United Nations so significantly — and he already believes that America spends far too much on too many overseas commitments — and that itself may be useful.

9.  More than 70 percent of American Jews voted foolishly for Hillary against Trump.  G-d blessed Israel that, at her time of need, there is a Christian community in America — the conservative Evangelicals — who back Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria fully and who made clear to Mr. Trump that, along with religious and social issues dear to them (and, by the way to Orthodox Jews) — opposition to abortion, issues regarding the traditional family, Government interference in religion — they insist on supporting Israel, support moving the embassy to Jerusalem, and support the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (the so-called “Jewish settlements in Occupied Palestine”).

10.  The so–called “Two-State Solution” died years and years ago.  No one told Obama that he helped kill it by siding so unilaterally with Arab demands against Israel.  Obama induced Mahmoud Abbas almost a decade ago to stop talks with Israel, leaving Obama and Hillary, succeeded by Kerry, to do the dirty work.  As a result, stasis ensued, and Jews continued moving in. There now are more than 750,000 Jews in Judea and Samaria, including Jews living in East Jerusalem.  The Arabs will not allow them to remain there, and Israel cannot logistically relocate them.  Israel could not even relocate or successfully re-employ 10,000 Jews from Gush Katif who were forcibly uprooted and displaced during Ariel Sharon’s Gaza give-away.  Israel cannot remove 800,000 people, place them in alternate homes and find them productive jobs.  It is logistically impossible.  Only Adolf Hitler could remove a million Jews from their homes and ‘resettle’ them.

So there is no “Two-State” solution because, except for displacing a few families in Amona, who will one day live in even better homes, it will not happen anyway because Israel is not going to put a million Jews in cattle cars and ship them to camps of concentration. Israel simply does not have alternate housing and employment for a million people.  It simply will not happen because it now is logistically impossible.

11.  Israel made major concessions in past negotiations, reaching agreements under Clinton and George W. Bush to make major concessions in return for American assurances and guarantees that included assurances that America would recognize the legality of certain major populations of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

Today’s experience at the U.N. marks America reneging fundamentally on its pledged commitments made in these deals, thus nullifying the legal binding of those deals.  It also reminds Israel that only she can watch out for her survival because other countries have their own interests, and government leaderships change.  Even President Trump will not be forever, though he does have four years ahead with a good chance of eight years if he jump-starts the economy successfully, and there is a reasonably good chance for some extra time afterwards with Vice President Mike Pence succeeding him in eight years if the Republicans rule properly, effectively, and generously.

12.  It is particularly satisfying the Myth of Obama in the American Jewish community to be exposed and remembered.  Israeli Jews already “had his number” eight years ago. This is an effete who characterized the Radical Islamist terrorist murders of Jews in France, in the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo murders, as having been the result of some violent people attacking a “random grocery store.”  That world view accorded with Obama characterizing the Radical Islamist murders at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.”

American Jews, more than others, need to remember whom they supported and what he and his ilk are.  Jews also need to know now that Charles Schumer, Democrat Senator from New York and the Democrats’ Senate Minority Leader, is not their savior but rather is their deep embarrassment, and Schumer has no influence on matters concerning Israel’s survival. He is utterly useless. Likewise, the Orthodox Jew in Obama’s cabinet — Jack Lew, Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury — could not influence the day. He, too, was utterly useless, and it is valuable that he be remembered that way, now that his uselessness has been exposed.

In the end, Jews need to know who their friends are, who their obvious enemies are, who their covert enemies are, and most importantly, as we embark on commemorating the Hanukkah miracle in the Beit Hamikdash — the Holy Temple — Jews need to know that their survival is in the hands of G-d.

13.  I conclude as I began.  J Street is an organization supported in no small measure by George Soros. There has been some public discussion the past ten days in America as to whether it is fair to call the pathetic self-hating back-stabbers in J Street “worse than Kapos.”  The record will show that, on the day that Obama ineffectually took one last swipe at Israel, J Street issued the statement it did.  Res Ipsa Loquitur.  The thing speaks for itself.

The poetry of UN politics

December 25, 2016

The poetry of UN politics, Israel Hayom, Annika Hernroth-Rothstein, December 25, 2016

Obama has cemented his legacy, and now we can focus on our own. What should we do, what act of Jewish defiance should we partake in, to show the world what’s what? They can write words on paper and shake their fists while we settle our land and say our ancient blessings. One side is a paper tiger; the other is a lion that roars.

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

I actually think it’s poetic. Just as Hanukkah, a festival of Jewish resistance, was approaching, the world turned on the Jewish state and an “ally” showed its true colors.

Much is being said about U.S. President Barack Obama’s choice to have his country abstain from voting on the U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements as illegal, and much will continue to be said, but none of us can really be that surprised. This was an obvious move by Obama, a last hurrah from a man who from day one set himself apart as a breaker of ties and holder of grudges. He was never a friend of Israel, and combined with his not-too-subtle need for pompous pageantry, this last kick in the gut toward Israel was a given.

The emotional upheaval notwithstanding, this act actually means very little for the outgoing president. But for others, it means all the more. What Obama did by choosing not to veto the vote was to re-elect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and throw support behind Donald Trump that the president-elect could have never expected to receive otherwise.

Until now, liberal Jews have supported and defended Obama and his policies, but when he set out to humiliate Israel, he also ended up shaming and humiliating a lot of Jewish Democrats, thus losing his party a whole host of voters to settle a personal score. Liberal Jews stuck by him through foreign policy blunders, anti-religious policies and personal spats with the Israeli leadership, but his ego got the best of him one too many times, and now minds are opening to Trump that otherwise would have stayed closed. As for Netanyahu, he is much too smart to be outraged over this resolution without teeth, and he knows that such biased bullying will do nothing to lessen the strength of the Jewish state but will only give him a more powerful mandate to lead.

And what this vote mean for us, the Jewish people? Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, once said that our future does not depend on what other nations say, but what Jews do, and what better time to be reminded of that than now, in this holiday season? These bills, proposals and outrageous resolutions do not attack the Jewish state; they attack our Jewishness, and it is with Jewishness we need to respond. Rather than focus outward, with anger at the obvious, we should focus inward at the core of what they hate and the heart of what we could be.

As I light my Hannukah candles and say the blessing in the words of my forefathers, I keep the codes and laws given to us through the original deed to our land. While some choose to cry out for our delegitimization, my actions and choices award me legitimacy, and the more they try to make me less of what I am, the louder and stronger I become.

This resolution was passed to delegitimize the State of Israel, but chances are it will lead to the delegitimization of the United Nations. They overplayed their hand and will ultimately end up losing. The only question is what we as Jews choose to do, and what choices we make when it comes to our survival.

This vote was not about Obama, Netanyahu or Trump, and it is neither more nor less important than any of the others before it. The more we shout and cry about it, the more we give Obama what he wants and enable him to feel like a trailblazer, when he is little more than a petulant child. This vote is about us, and we should keep it that way, honoring the message of the Maccabees and the struggle that brought us here and has kept us here until this day.

Obama has cemented his legacy, and now we can focus on our own. What should we do, what act of Jewish defiance should we partake in, to show the world what’s what? They can write words on paper and shake their fists while we settle our land and say our ancient blessings. One side is a paper tiger; the other is a lion that roars.

Happy Hanukkah.

Why Obama Has Hurt the Palestinian People Far More Than Israel

December 24, 2016

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

unuseless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNSC resolution promotes Mid East war

December 24, 2016

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

obama_bibi2480-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 24, 2016

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

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

Obama Rhymes-With-Bucks Israel

December 24, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Joins the Jackals

December 24, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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