Arabs No Longer Take Obama Administration Seriously

by Khaled Abu Toameh:

The extension of the peace talks means only one thing: that Abbas will be able to use the new time given to him to try to extract further concessions from the U.S. and Israel, while all the time bearing in mind that Obama and Kerry are willing to do almost anything to avoid a situation where they are forced to admit that their efforts and initiatives in the Middle East have failed.

The communiqué issued by Arab heads of state at the end of their summit in Kuwait this week shows that the Arab countries do not hold the Obama Administration in high regard or even take it seriously.

The Arab leaders also proved once again that they do not care much about their own people, including the Palestinians.

The Arab leaders, at the end of their two-day meeting, announced their “total rejection of the call to consider Israel a Jewish state.”

This announcement came despite pressure from the Obama Administration on the Arab leaders to refrain from rejecting the demand.

A top Arab diplomat was quoted as saying that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry contacted Arab leaders on the eve of their 25th summit in Kuwait to “warn” them against rejecting Israel as a Jewish state.

Kerry, according to the diplomat, asked the Arab leaders completely to ignore the issue of Israel’s Jewishness and not to make any positive or negative reference to it in their final statement.

Kerry did not want the Arab heads of state to repeat the same “mistake” that the Arab League foreign ministers made on March 9, when they too issued a statement declaring their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The Arab leaders, however, decided to ignore Kerry’s warning and went on to endorse Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas’s refusal.

The Arab summit’s statement was published shortly before Kerry cut short a European tour to hold an emergency meeting with Abbas in Amman in a last-minute effort to salvage the peace process with Israel.

 

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry cut short a European tour to hold an emergency meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Amman, Jordan, pictured above on March 26, 2014. (Image source: U.S. Sate Department)

In light of the Arab summit’s announcement, all that is left for Kerry to do is to put heavy pressure on Abbas to agree to the extension of the peace talks after the April 29 deadline set by the U.S. Administration.

At the meeting in Amman, Kerry warned Abbas that failure to comply with his demand would result in U.S. sanctions against the PA, including suspending financial aid and closing the PLO diplomatic mission in Washington.

Emboldened by the Arab leaders’ backing, however, Abbas does not seem to take Kerry’s threats seriously, particularly in light of previous threats by the U.S. Administration that were never carried out.

In 2012, Abbas had also ignored U.S. threats and pressure by seeking UN recognition of a Palestinian state. The Obama Administration did not take any retaliatory measures against the PA or against Abbas himself.

Like most of the Arab leaders, Abbas apparently understands that the Obama Administration has been weakened to a point where it is no longer able to impose its will on any Arab leader.

The way things appear now, it is Abbas who is setting new conditions and coming up with new demands, evidently from a conviction that the Obama Administration has no choice but to succumb.

Abbas today seems to feel confident enough to set his own conditions for accepting Kerry’s demand to extend the peace talks.

Abbas has therefore now come up with a new requirement: that Israel release three senior Palestinians from Israeli prison: Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, PFLP Secretary-General Ahmed Sa’dat and Gen. Fuad Shobaki. All three are serving lengthy prison sentences for their role in terrorist activities, including the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze’evi.

The Palestinians also continue to accuse the Obama Administration of exerting heavy pressure on Abbas to soften his position and accept some of Israel’s demands, including the issue of Israel’s Jewishness. Some senior Palestinian officials in Ramallah have even accused Obama and Kerry of practicing “political and financial blackmail” against Abbas.

Abbas seems assured that Obama and Kerry are so desperate to avoid a collapse of the peace talks that they will be willing to accept anything he or the Arab leaders ask for.

The Arab summit stance on the issue of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is a blow to the Obama Administration’s efforts to achieve a peace agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

There is a feeling among many Arabs and Palestinians that the Obama Administration has no clue as to what it wants from the Arab world. They point out that the Obama Administration has failed in its policies toward several Arab countries, especially Egypt, Libya and Syria.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Mushroom Clouds on the Horizon: Iranian Nuclear Threats Dominate AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Getty Images)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Getty Images)

By :

Policy makers and experts addressing the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference on March 2-4, 2014, consistently expressed opposition against Iranian nuclear weapons proliferation. Such unanimity, though, could not conceal widespread conference skepticism about President Barack Obama’s administration effectively meeting this danger.

“You know that I like to draw lines, especially red ones,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu joked during his March 4 closing address in reference to his Sept. 27, 2012, United Nations speech.

At AIPAC, though, Netanyahu wanted to “draw a clear line…between life and death,” vowing that Jews would “never be brought to the brink of extinction again.” “There is unanimity” in Israel concerning Iran as “clearly the most dangerous threat” to Israel and beyond, Israeli Labor Party head Isaac Herzog likewise stated on the conference’s opening day.

Netanyahu emphasized that Iran threatened the wider world beyond Israel.

“That Scud’s for you,” he stated in an adaptation of Anheuser-Busch’s “this Bud’s for you” slogan when discussing Iranian missiles that will soon range beyond Israel to America. Even Iranian enrichment capability in a “threshold nuclear power would deliver a deathblow to nuclear nonproliferation” in a “Pandora’s Box” of other proliferating Middle Eastern states.

The nuclear Iran “nightmare” would place American Middle East bases at risk as “our entire regional calculus” changed, Sen. Chris Coons declared during a March 2 panel with former Sen.Joseph Lieberman. A nuclear Iran after years of American opposition would be an “even more devastating blow” to nonproliferation than North Korea, international security analyst Emily Landau subsequently agreed with Coons during another panel.

“The international community will look powerless.”

“We do not have a policy of containment…we will not allow a nuclear Iran,” Sen. Charles Schumer flatly declared March 3. This policy existed “not just to protect Israel” but also critical American Middle Eastern interests such as oil. “Deep, deep concern” by Schumer for the region demanded that the United States “use all, all available tools” against Iranian proliferation.

In this Sept. 27, 2012 file photo, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel shows an illustration as he describes his concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions during his address to the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters. Credit: AP

In this Sept. 27, 2012 file photo, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel shows an illustration as he describes his concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions during his address to the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters. Credit: AP

Prior to Schumer, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Democratic Party House Whip Steny Hoyer emphasized bipartisan opposition to Iranian proliferation. Hoyer warned that “Iran cannot use negotiations simply to buy time.” On Iranian nuclear proliferation “there can be no compromise,” concurred AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr on March 2, “the policy must be one of prevention.”

Rhetorically, President Barack Obama’s administration seemed to agree.

Citing Obama’s “ironclad” commitment to Israel’s security, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew insisted March 2 upon “no alternative” to Iranian nonproliferation. “All options remain on the table,” Lew warned in repetition of Hoyer earlier while discussing “one of the most pressing concerns” for both Israel and America.

“We will not permit Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Period,” Secretary of State John Kerrystressed the following night. Invoking Obama’s “complete, unmatched commitment to Israel’s security,” Kerry declared “no deal is better than a bad deal.” Iran’s “existential threat” to Israel also endangered the globe such that stopping Iran “is not some favor…for Israel.”

Kerry and Lew’s plan to forestall Iranian proliferation included the Nov. 24, 2013, Joint Plan of Action (JPA), a six month interim agreement trading international sanctions relief for an Iranian nuclear program halt. The JPA’s estimated $7 billion sanctions relief was “only a small taste of how things could improve” for an Iran suffering the “most comprehensive sanctions regime in history,” Lew stated. After the Iranian economy contracted 6 percent last year, unemployment and inflation were over 15% and 30%, respectively. “Iran is not open for business,” Kerry repeated a line of Lew’s, “until Iran is closed for nuclear bombs.”

An opportunity for the JPA to succeed without additional, congressionally imposed sanctions, was “critically important” according to Lew. A demonstrated willingness to negotiate would maintain international support for sanctions and justify any subsequent military “force as a last resort.”

Read more at The Blaze

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is admitted to the Virginia State Bar. He has published over 110 articles concerning various political and religious topics at the American Thinker, Breitbart.com, Daily Caller, FrontPage Magazine, Faith Freedom International, Gatestone Institute, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Mercatornet, and World, among others. He be reached at: andrew.harrod@live.com.

Also see:

Obama’s Betrayal of Israel as a Jewish State

Kerry-450x322by :

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has flatly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Such recognition is a key condition that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded for reaching an acceptable peace agreement on a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

Prime Minister Netanyahu explained the importance of such Palestinian recognition, which would amount to an expression of the Palestinians’ good faith intention to truly end the conflict by accepting Israel’s right of self-determination to once and for all live in peace as the Jewish state its founders envisioned:

“The central question at the end is of course ‘Are you willing to recognize that the state of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish nation?’. If you don’t have the brunt of the agreement, then why turn to the leftovers. Concentrate on the central and difficult questions that they need to provide an answer for, but they don’t provide an answer. If they do give an answer — its negative. They say that they will not recognize a Jewish state in order to leave the right of return on the table. So then what are we even talking about here? That a Palestinian state will be established but it will continue its conflict against the state of Israel with more preferential borders? We are a lot of things, but we are definitely not fools.”

Incredibly, the U.S. State Department backs Abbas’ position. The spokeswoman for the State Department, Jen Psaki, stated in an interview Saturday with the “Al-Quds” newspaper that “[T]here is no need for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The American stance is clear in that it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, but there is no need for the Palestinians to recognize it as such in a final agreement.”

Psaki is ignoring the Palestinians’ intent to throw out any Israelis still living in an independent Palestinian state. Abbas, for example, declared that “If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories.” He denied that he was against the Jews per se, but such antipathy is precisely what animates the xenophobic, anti-Jewish Palestinian ideology. This ideology starts with the Palestinian Authority’s attempt to falsely re-write the history of the Jewish homeland, denying that Jews have any historic connection to the land at all. Official Palestinian Authority outlets broadcast this lie over and over again. For example, in a documentary appearing last December on an official Palestinian Authority TV station, a woman proclaimed:  “I’m not against Jews. They can live. They can live on Mars, Allah willing, but they cannot take over places that are not their places, or land that is not their land and a homeland that is not their homeland.”

On January 7, 2014, the official spokesperson for President Abbas, Nabil Abu Rudeina, accused the Israeli government of “falsifying history.”

Then there is the provocative statement by Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash in a sermon delivered in the presence of Abbas and broadcast on official Palestinian Authority TV. Al-Habbash said that any peace agreement reached with Israel is just the first step towards defeating Israel, citing as the “model” Mohammed’s conquest of Mecca just two years after he had signed a treaty that gave his forces time to gain enough strength to carry out the conquest.

Recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state would be contrary to the Palestinians’ goal of returning millions of the descendants of the original refugees to pre-1967 Israel. In other words, while insisting that Israel withdraw to the pre-1967 lines to make way for an independent Palestinian state devoid of any Israeli Jews, the Palestinians still demand the right to undermine the Jewish character of Israel, even as it existed pre-1967, by flooding Israel with so-called “refugees” (actually many descendants several generations removed from the original refugees) rather than giving them real homes in an independent Palestinian state.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Iran official: US has accepted country’s nuclear enrichment

unnamed-e1392619705498By Reza Kahlili:

The U.S. has accepted the continuation of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, an Iranian official said Sunday, a claim the Islamic regime’s media have also reported recently, citing comments by U.S. delegates to their Iranian counterparts at the Geneva 5+1 negotiations.

“The Islamic regime will never abide by the politics of America or any other country and has paid the price (through sanctions) to stick with its own policies,” Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the foreign policy and national security committee of the Iranian parliament, said in a meeting with Brazilian Senator Valdir Raupp, according to the regime’s media outlet ISNA.

In discussing the nuclear negotiations with Raupp, Boroujerdi said plainly that the Obama administration has accepted Iran’s right to continue nuclear enrichment.

Boroujerdi addressed America’s efforts to halt Iran’s enrichment activity for the last 10 years: “Today America has accepted that Iran has the right to enrichment, and a simple analysis of this fact is that America has surrendered to the will of the Islamic Republic.”

In reference to the nuclear negotiations between the 5+1 world powers and Iran in Geneva, he said that America is mistaken if it believes that it is the ultimate power.

“Currently we are engaged in the nuclear negotiations in Geneva, and in two days the new round of negotiations will take place,” he said.

A recent report by Irannuc.ir, a media outlet close to the Islamic regime’s intelligence community, also revealed that the American negotiating team has informed its Iranian counterpart that in the final agreement, to be reached within six months of the November preliminary agreement, Iran could keep enriching with as many as 4,000 centrifuges but the Iranian team responded that it would agree to 10,000. The outlet also reported that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif are in constant contact in behind-the-scene negotiations.

Iran has negotiated its nuclear program with the U.S. and the world powers for over a decade, during which time it has successfully increased the number of centrifuges enriching uranium from 150 to over 19,000 today. It now has over 10 tons of low-enriched uranium — enough for several bombs — and has over a thousand ballistic missiles. In collaboration with North Korea, it is also working on both a nuclear bomb and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, claimed victory over the United States shortly after the interim nuclear agreement was reached in Geneva between the Islamic Republic and the 5+1 world powers last November.

Under the agreement, Iran, in return for sanctions relief, will keep much of its nuclear infrastructure, is limited to enriching uranium to the five percent level for six months, will convert its highly enriched uranium of 20 percent to harmless oxide and will allow more intrusive inspections of its nuclear plants by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will be limited to only agreed-on facilities. Military facilities are off-limits.

Iran has always believed that America has no choice but to accept its nuclear program. In an article in April 2012 titled “The Lessons from the Past for the Negotiations in April,” Mohammad Mohammadi, an Iranian international affairs and nuclear expert, wrote, “Looking back at the past decade, all the red lines by America and the West over Iran’s nuclear issue have now been transformed into acceptance. America has always adopted radical actions at first that have changed to symbolic measures later. Iran has always known that America and the West needed a way to solve the nuclear issue with some honor, and today it is quite visible that with the defeat of America’s policies toward Iran, the talk about a need to solve the Iranian nuclear issue diplomatically is a way to obtain that honor.”

Read more at Daily Caller

 

Ayatollah Leads “Death to America” Chants: Lying U.S. Leaders Don’t Have the Guts to Attack Iran

 

Tehran TV Mocks Obama’s “Ton of Bricks” Comment: He Can Take a Brick and Knock it against His Head

 

Iran TV Airs Simulation of Sinking of U.S. Aircraft Carrier, Attacks on Israel

 

 

 

 

U.S. Lifts Ban on Immigrants With Links to Terrorism

immigrants oath

The Obama admin.is overriding the U.S. Criminal Code for individuals who have provided material support to terrorism.

BY CLARE LOPEZ:

Muslim Brotherhood affiliates scored a major victory in their efforts to degrade U.S. national security measures in early February 2014 when the Obama administration decided to override by fiat portions of the U.S. Criminal Code and immigration policy pertaining to individuals who provide “material support to terrorism.”

As published in the Federal Register on February 5, 2014, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State issued a joint notice that, henceforth, certain asylum seekers and refugees who only provided “limited material support” to terrorism would be allowed into the U.S.

The earlier law as written, The Real ID Law of 2005, states quite explicitly that the definition of engaging in terrorist activity includes:

To commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit … to a terrorist organization [emphasis added]

Such activity, no matter how minor, constituted grounds for exclusion from entry to the U.S.

By unilaterally lifting restrictions — without so much as consulting Congress — for those intending immigrants who engaged in “(1) certain routine commercial transactions or certain routine social transactions (i.e., in the satisfaction of certain well-established or verifiable family, social, or cultural obligations), [or] (2) certain humanitarian assistance,” that benefited terrorist organizations, the Obama administration simply overrode existing law. So far, both the judicial and legislative branches of the U.S. government have let the administration get away with it.

According to the Daily Caller, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry signed the exemptions despite very real concerns about the legality of the executive branch deciding to ignore aspects of an existing law it doesn’t want to enforce and replacing them with its own guidelines.

Former State Department official and current director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies Jessica Vaughan worried as well that “those evaluating these cases will be ordered to ignore red flags in the applications, especially if the applicant is supported by one of the many advocacy groups that have the ear of senior DHS staff.”

The new policy decree marks a significant win for agents of influence belonging to advocacy groups acting on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood agenda to pursue “civilization jihad” “to destroy Western civilization from within…by [our] hands,” as asserted in the “Explanatory Memorandum,” a key Brotherhood document introduced as evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.

As described at some length in “The Islamists’—and their Enablers’—Assault on the Right: The Case Against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan,” an February 11, 2014 dossier of particulars published by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), it is precisely in executing political influence operations aimed at U.S. national security leadership (whether Republican or Democratic) that the Muslim Brotherhood so excels.

The CSP paper explains in exhaustive detail and with meticulously referenced citations how the Muslim Brotherhood targeted the Republican Party and the conservative movement over a period of years and succeeded in placing senior operatives such as Abdurahman Alamoudi, Sami al-Arian, Nihad Awad, and Khaled Saffuri deep inside senior leadership circles.

It was at those top levels of government—the Executive Branch, the Intelligence Community, and the National Security Council—where critical decision-making took place, especially in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, that set U.S. counterterrorism strategy on a hopeless loop that deliberately avoided, and indeed later would forbid, knowledge about Islamic doctrine, law and scripture as the animating inspiration for Islamic terrorism.

By divorcing the enemy’s core ideology from study of the enemy threat doctrine, Muslim Brotherhood agents of influence succeeded in ensuring that U.S. blood and treasure would be endlessly and fruitlessly expended in Counterinsurgency (COIN) warfare, nation-building exercises and democracy experiments in the most unsuitable places possible: Muslim lands under rule of Islamic law (sharia).

As noted in CSP’s 2010 Team B II Report, “Shariah: The Threat to America,” Americans do pretty well at defending against military-style frontal assaults. We do far less well, though, at either recognizing or countering the “menace posed by jihadist enemies who operate by deceit and stealth from inside the gates.

And yet it is the latter threat that poses a far more serious threat to open, tolerant societies like ours than the openly terrorist attack like the one that struck on 9/11.

Read more at Clarion Project

Clare Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez served for 20 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Also see:

Obama’s Hollow Promises Abroad

by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
February 12, 2014

As U.S. credibility and stature diminish in world affairs, the American president and his secretaries of state and defense engage in eloquent denial. Unfortunately for them, realities trump words, even persuasive ones.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, “where the water-cooler chatter was about America’s waning influence in the Middle East,” John Kerry proclaimed himself “perplexed by claims… that somehow America is disengaging from the world.” Nothing could be further from the truth, he asserted: “We are entering an era of American diplomatic engagement that is as broad and as deep as any at any time in our history.” Likewise, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has called for “a renewed and enhanced era of partnership with our friends and allies.”

In this spirit, Obama has made multiple promises to reassure allies.

To South Korea, which depends on the American “tripwire” to deter a demented dictator who could flatten Seoul within the first few hours of an artillery barrage, Obama promised that “The commitment of the United States to the Republic of Korea will never waver.”

 

U.S. and South Korean troops train together.

To Japan, which depends on the U.S. Seventh Fleet to deter increasingly aggressive Chinese encroachment on the Senkaku Islands, he reaffirmed that “The United States remains steadfast in its defense commitments to Japan,” which the State Department specifically indicated includes theSenkaku Islands.

To Taiwan, whose security against the Peoples Republic depends on the American deterrent, he “reaffirmed our commitment to… the Taiwan Relations Act,” which requires the United States to maintain the capacity “to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security of” Taiwan.

To the Philippines, worried about its territories in the South China Sea claimed by China, particularly the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Reef, he reaffirmed a commitment to the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty that provides, in the event of an armed attack, that the United States “would act to meet the common dangers.”

 

One of the many Spratly Islands.

To Saudi Arabia, alarmed by Obama’s appeasement of Iran in the Joint Plan of Action, he reiterated “the firm commitment of the United States to our friends and allies in the Gulf.”

And to Israel, isolated in a sea of enemies, Obama declared “America’s unwavering commitment to Israel’s security,” because standing by Israel “is in our fundamental national security interest.”

Trouble is, first, that Americans doubt these fine and steadfast words:

  • Record numbers of Americans believe that U.S. global power and prestige are declining, according to the Pew Research Center. For the first time in surveys dating back to the 1970s, “a majority (53 percent) says the United States plays a less important and powerful role as a world leader than it did a decade ago,” while only 17 percent thought American power has been enhanced. An even larger majority, 70 percent, “say the United States is less respected than in the past.” And 51 percent say Obama is “not tough enough” in foreign policy and national security issues.
  • More than two thirds have a negative opinion of Obama’s handling of Iran, the Mellman Group found; a majority (54-37 percent) support targeted military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities rather than allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
  • McLaughlin & Associates finds that 49 percent of respondents think that America’s standing has been diminished during Obama’s five years in office; 40 percent think America’s adversaries now look at Obama with contempt.
 

Josef Joffe, editor Germany’s “Die Zeit” weekly.

Second, Pew Research reports that half the publics in Britain, France, and Germany, as well as a third in the U.S. and Russia, see China eventually replacing the United States as the world’s leading superpower. Two-thirds of Israelis think Obama will not stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons.

Third, world leaders in countries as varied as Japan,Poland, and Israel hear Obama’s promises as unrelated to reality. Speaking for many, Josef Joffe of Germany’s Die Zeit weekly finds “consistency and coherence to Obama’s attempt to retract from the troubles of the world, to get the U.S. out of harm’s way. … to be harsh about it, he wants to turn the U.S. into a very large medium power.”

Successful “diplomatic engagement” (as Kerry calls it) must be backed by consistency, power, and will, not by nice words, hollow promises, and wishful thinking. Will the Obama administration realize this before doing permanent damage? Watch the Iranian nuclear deal for possible changes, or not.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2014 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Israel Won’t Submit to Boycott Threats

ben-450x304by :

The speech given by Secretary of State John Kerry at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, February 1, 2014, created quite a stir in Israel. The media debated Kerry’s intent and politicians from across the political spectrum reacted to what they perceived as threats of boycotts against Israel. It is clear that Kerry’s statements were intended to intimidate the Israeli leadership into falling in line with the framework for peace he will be delivering in the near future.

In Munich, Kerry stated, “Everywhere I go in the world, wherever I go – I promise you, no exaggeration, the Far East, Africa, Latin America – one of the first questions out of the mouths of a foreign minister or a prime minister or a president is, ‘Can’t you guys do something to help bring an end to this conflict between Palestinians and Israelis?’ Indonesia – people care about it because it’s become either in some places an excuse or in other places an organizing principle for efforts that can be very troubling in certain places.  I believe that – and you see for Israel there’s an increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up. People are very sensitive to it. There is talk of boycotts and other kind of things. Are we all going to be better with all of that?”

Secretary of State Kerry spoke of consequences for Israel should the current peace talks fail. He warned that “Today’s status quo absolutely, to a certainty, I promise you 100 percent, cannot be maintained. It’s not sustainable. It’s illusionary…”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded on Sunday, February 2, 2014 to Kerry’s speech. He said, “Boycott attempts are immoral, unjust, and will not achieve their goal.” Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz argued that “Israel can’t conduct negotiations with a gun pointed to its head.” He went on to say that Kerry’s comments were “offensive.”  Naftali Bennett, the Economics Minister, charged that Kerry’s statements show him as siding with Israel’s foes. “We expect our friends around the world to stand beside us, against anti-Semitic efforts targeting Israel, and not for them to be their amplifier.” Ethiopian-born Member of Knesset Pnina Tamano-Shata, of the centrist Yesh Atid party, observed that Kerry’s statements at the Munich Conference “are irresponsible in my view and harm the State of Israel.”

Israeli voices on the political left including Justice Minister Tzipi Livni defended Kerry saying, “When the leader says to us friends, the reality is going to change in the event of a political deal, this does not constitute a threat to the State of Israel, but rather defines reality as it is.”

What Livni neglected to explain however, is why Kerry failed to mention what consequences the Palestinians would suffer if the talks failed. It is the Palestinians under Mahmoud Abbas (not to mention the Palestinians of Hamas in Gaza) who have been the rejectionist party in these negotiations (scheduled to end on April 29, 2014, unless extended). In an interview with the New York Times on Sunday, February 2, 2014, Abbas was asked by a reporter about recognition of Israel as a Jewish State. He replied, “This is out of the question,” noting that “Jordan and Egypt were not asked to do so when they signed peace treaties with Israel.”

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

 

 

Iran Answers Appeasement with Warships

httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiList_of_current_ships_of_the_Iranian_Navy-antiship-missile-noor-c802Frigates-Alvand-Moudge-Corvettes-Bayandor-Hamzeh5-Missile-Craft-Houdong-KamanSina-Patrol-Coastal-Pa-10-450x322By Arnold Ahlert:

Despite the alleged “good faith” negotiations taking place between Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Secretary of State John Kerry, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror is now testing the United States’ mettle. Iranian warships initially sent on their first trip to the Atlantic Ocean in January will now travel close to U.S. maritime borders. The move was revealed Saturday by a senior Iranian naval commander.

“Iran’s military fleet is approaching the United States’ maritime borders, and this move has a message,” said Adm. Afshin Rezayee Haddad of Iran’s Northern Navy Fleet,  according to Iran’s Fars news agency. Fars further noted that Iran had warned the Obama administration they would initiate the deployment “in the next few years” back in September of 2012. At the time, Iran’s Navy Commander R.-Adm. Habibollah Sayyari noted that the gesture would be aimed at countering the U.S. Navy’s presence in Iranian waters. The U.S. Navy’s 5th fleet is based in Bahrain, across the Persian Gulf from Iran.

The Islamic Republic News Agency (INRA) reported that Haddad said ships have already entered the Atlantic Ocean in waters near South Africa, after beginning their voyage from the southern Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas last month. The fleet consists of two ships, a helicopter carrier and a destroyer carrying an approximate total of 30 navy academy cadets in training as well as their regular crews. Their mission will last three months.

Earlier on the same day in a speech marking the 35th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei lashed out at the U.S. He contended the United States would overthrow the Iranian regime if it were capable of doing so, and that Washington had a “controlling and meddlesome” attitude towards his nation. “American officials publicly say they do not seek regime change in Iran. That’s a lie. They wouldn’t hesitate a moment if they could do it,” he was quoted as saying by Fars.

Khamenei said nothing about the current negotiations, but explained that when dealing with the nation’s “enemies” Iran should be prepared to change tactics, even as it resists compromise on any of its primary principles. He also warned his nation to solve their own economic problems. “The solution to our economic problems is not looking out and having the sanctions lifted,” he said. “My advice to our officials, as ever, is to rely on infinite indigenous potentials.”

Khamenei has nothing to worry about on the sanction front. The Obama administration has apparently convinced themselves they were little more than a tangential element in bringing Iran to the bargaining table regarding its nuclear ambitions. The the Islamic Republic has already been given the first $500 million of $4.2 billion in assets that had been frozen. ”The first tranche of $500 million was deposited in a Swiss bank account, and everything was done in accordance with the agreement,” announced Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi on February 1. According to a U.S. official, subsequent payments will be “evenly distributed” over the next 180 days.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

A Mockery of Peace

obama mapby Justin O Smith:

Israel gives the world no peace, it bars slumber, it teaches the world to be discontented and restless as long as the world has not God. -Jacques Maritain

The modern racism, which yearned to eliminate Jews from society as a gardener would root out weeds, the sort of racism that allowed pogroms to flourish across Russia and Europe in the 1890s and culminated in the death camps of the 1940s in Nazi Germany, is on the rise once more in Europe and America, with U.S. president Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry leading the way. In an overt act of anti-semitism, Kerry recently remarked in the affirmative and in agreement with several European leaders that boycotts and sanctions against Israel may be needed to force Israel to accept the Kerry Plan for “peace” and a two state solution, as if Israel does not want peace and the Palestinians’ claims in the area are not specious and false.

While the Kerry Plan does call for the Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist as the state of the Jewish people, two of its main points certainly must be non-starters for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel is to withdraw from the West Bank to the 1967 borders, and East Jerusalem will become the Palestinian capital.

Since the land of Israel in 1948 accounted for less than a fourth of the land originally designated “Palestine,” and Jordan, an Islamic/Palestinian state that forbids Jews settlement rights by law, was carved out of the Palestinian “Jewish National Home,” how can the Arabs be said to have been excluded from a “Palestinian homeland”?

Just how much land will Israel have to relinquish in order to achieve real peace? All of it according to Yasir Arafat, former head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, when he spoke with world renown journalist Oriana Fallaci in Amman, Jordan in March 1972.

President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and head of the Fatah Party recently proposed an old NATO security proposal for the area that was favored by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Ohmert and former U.S. President George W. Bush. Abbas will accept a U.S. led NATO and Jordanian force into the Palestinian state indefinitely to prevent the sort of terrorism that occurred after Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2004. Abbas also allows that a “third party” can stay in the newly demilitarized West Bank “for a long time…to reassure the Israelis and to protect us” (the Palestinians).

No, this plan should not offer Israel any comfort. Abbas and the Palestinians will be the only winners, gaining their new state. Israel’s national security will be compromised, as they attempt to defend a barely defensible position from behind the 1967 borders. This places Israel at a severe disadvantage from the start, should any new conflict arise. With NATO’s ability to ensure any real security suspect at best, for Israel, it is like starting a chess game without one’s queen.

Many so-called experts are discussing this framework agreement, as though it is a morally superior endeavor to all previous peace talks. However, whether we speak of the 1915 Sykes-Picot Agreement, the 1917 Balfour Treaty, the 1922 British Mandate and through each successive agreement to the Kerry Plan, most of the world has sought to undermine the State of Israel, while proclaiming otherwise. And now, the U.S. government too is underminig Israel, America’s long-time ally.

Netanyahu does not trust the Palestinians to negotiate honestly, as he stated recently: “I do not want a binational state. But we also don’t want another state that will start attacking us.” And, intuitively, Netanyahu rightly does not trust Obama and Kerry, as was evident three weeks ago when he said, “Israel does not have to agree with everything America presents.”

The peace talks, scheduled to end April 29, nearly ended prematurely, when the Israelis announced on January 10, 2014 that they intended to build 1400 housing units in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, was highly upset, but Erekat and all involved in this framework agreement process understood that settlement construction would continue full force during negotiations.

Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political base opposes the Kerry Plan, Netanyahu sees a two state solution of some sort, as necessary for Israel’s integrity as a Jewish democratic state, with healthy ties to Europe and the West for the sake of Israel’s economy. In this light, John Kerry’s coercion and economic blackmail are especially egregious, despicable and unnecessary; Kerry has damaged any future peace process, harmed Israel and damaged U.S.-Israeli diplomatic relations, but many Americans did not expect anything less from a man of such low character.

Once one reviews the historical record and understands that the British gave away Jewish land to the landless Arab/Muslims who were displaced by Islamic fuedal practices and extortionate taxation, not by the Jews, and, in conjunction one reads various quotes from decades past, one realizes anti-semitism never goes away; it just becomes more glib: “The greatest contemporary hero (in the Muslim world) is Hitler.” – John Gunther, ‘Inside Asia’, 1939; in 1974, Syrian PLO leader, Zuheir Muhsein explained, “Our purpose…it (a Palestinian state) will be a point of departure…This State will be the backbone of our struggle against Israel.” This mindset prevails today across the Middle East.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands against diplomatic storms that threaten to annihilate Israel eventually__God forbid__and liberal Jews in Israel’s Labor Party and in America who are advocating the Kerry Plan are making Israel’s situation tragic and unbearable. Bibi Netanyahu must reject outright this plan and Kerry and Obama, with all their bias towards the Palestinians, as Israel seeks new allies and economic partners; Bibi must reject Oslo and all previous accords. He must find the political will and support to annex Gaza and the West Bank, as he proceeds with a forced removal/repatriation of the Palestinians to Jordan or the rest of the Arab world. The world uttered not a peep when this was done to 2 million Russians, against their will, under the Marshall Plan after WWII, but listen to the outcry when this proves necessary for Israel. And, if the tragedy of Bethlehem under Palestinian control is any indication of things to come, at the very least, Jerusalem must always stay united and complete as the proper capital of Israel. All of this is preferable to a sham “peace” agreement that only serves Israel’s enemies.

Genesis 12:2__I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great.

The Obama Perpetrated Iran Disaster Emerges

kBy Christopher Holton:

Well, the deed is all but done. The Obamanistas have gotten what they wanted all along: a false detente with the Ayatollahs.

John Kerry would have us believe that the Iranian nuclear program has been frozen by the “agreement” he “hammered” out with Iranian negotiators, but the subsequent remarks from Iranian leaders are very telling; they don’t appear to believe that they agreed to anything that truly curtails their nuclear ambitions.

Kerry is lying.

At BEST, this agreement seems to have set back the Iranian nuclear program all of 6 weeks. It is now inevitable that one day we will wake up and turn on the cable news shows and be treated to the news that Iran has nuclear weapons.

Make no mistake, Obama was NEVER committed to preventing the Iranians from becoming armed with nuclear weapons. To Obama’s world view, this is simply a balancing of world power. We have more nukes than anyone, so, what difference does it make that Iran has nukes? (Incidentally, this is essentially the same position that some Republicans, notably Rand Paul, have taken.)

Obama also has an underlying animosity toward Israel and no doubt sees Iran as a nuclear power in much the same light as Israel as a nuclear power.

Probably the most disappointing to liberals in the US who purported to support Israel, Hillary Clinton has gone along with the charade. To Hillary Clinton, everything is about political expedience and she sees it in her best political interests not to disagree with Obama on Iran.

In other words, there is no one in power in Washington who is truly concerned about Iran having the atomic bomb.

Leon Panetta may actually have believed it a few years ago when he said that the US would not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, but he was being lied to by his colleagues in the Obama administration who claimed to hold that view. No one in the Obama administration is talking like that now.

John Kerry would have us believe that we can just turn sanctions back on like a light switch if the Iranians don’t hold up their end of the faux bargain. This is perhaps the biggest lie.

Maybe the US can turn on sanctions again, but such unilateral sanctions will have little effect because the Chinese and the Russians are running full-speed into expanding their operations in the Iranian market now and our allies in Europe, Japan and South Korea are headed back in too. None of those countries, all of whom have closer economic ties to Iran than the US, is likely to turn sanctions back on any time soon. Nope, the genie is out of the bottle.

Meanwhile, the Iranians are up to their usual nefarious activities. They are playing chess and we still think the game is checkers.

Read more at Iran Bulletin

 

Obama admin unilaterally changes law to allow immigrants with ‘limited’ terror contact into US

2118ef3a69d043c4a191abba81d5ba27-e1382643433146By Caroline May:

The Obama administration has issued new exemptions to a law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists who are believed to pose no threat from the U.S.

The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new exemptions Wednesday in the Federal Register to narrow a ban in the Immigration and Nationality Act excluding refugees and asylum seekers who had provided limited material support, no matter how minor, to terrorists.

“These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure,” a DHS official explained to The Daily Caller.

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry signed the exemptions.

DHS contends that the law change is “commonsense” and that immigration procedures will remain the same in other respects.

“In addition to rigorous background vetting, including checks coordinated across several government agencies, these exemptions will only be applied on a case-by-case basis after careful review and all security checks have cleared,” the official added. “This exemption process is vital to advancing the U.S. government’s twin goal of protecting the world’s most vulnerable persons while ensuring U.S. national security and public safety.”

Read more at Daily Caller

Senators: Kerry Suggested Arming Syrian Rebels

John Kerry’s Blackmail

17763891-450x337Front Page, by :

American Secretary of State John Kerry continued the Obama Administration’s record of bullying, saying on Saturday, “for Israel there is an increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up. People are very sensitive to it, there is talk of boycott and other kinds of things. Are we all going to be better with all of that?” Kerry is pressuring Israel to make very difficult compromises, claiming if not there will be a “high risk” of increased boycotts, and a higher likelihood of international isolation for Israel. This, in English would be called blackmail.

This administration has repeatedly pushed through controversial, executive action policies that the majority of Americans oppose – and the Middle East is no different. Instead of standing with America’s closest ally, Kerry spent the weekend threatening violence and boycotts against Israel if the Jewish State doesn’t make sacrifices to placate the Palestinian Arabs. Despicable incitement which provides moral encouragement to those who seek to kill Jews and are also enemies of the West.

Why haven’t the Palestinians been threatened if peace talks break down? As a fellow Front Page Mag columnist previously noted, Palestinians cheer while America mourns. In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, Palestinians in Gaza cheered, “danced in the streets and handed out candy and sweets to motorists and pedestrians alike.” “Similarly, after the 9-11 attacks that killed 3,000 people, the Palestinian response was quite similar. Old women were seen shrieking in jubilation while children passed out sweets and men cheered approvingly.”  And these are the people American officials support?

Lest one forget, there were mass protests against America amongst Palestinian Arabs during President Barack Obama’s visit to the region.  Palestinians are no friends of the Christians, and stand as allies of Arab fundamentalists who are also anti-American.  Israel remains the only place in the Middle East where American flags aren’t burnt.

In November, John Kerry encouraged the Arabs to commit violence against Israel when he asked, “I mean, does Israel want a third intifada?” Kerry said Israel’s “isolation” would be their own fault if a peace deal with the Palestinians falls through. Kerry further warned the Israelis that “the alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos.” Tantamount to incitement by saying either give in or accept attacks. Despicable.

Simply, John Kerry is telling Israel that if it does not sacrifice land to the Palestinian Arabs, then they can deal with Arab violence. What Kerry neglects is that if Israel does sacrifice, it will also deal with Arab violence, and the Arabs won’t stop attacking as long as there is a Jewish State. The Palestinian Arabs have massacred Jewish men, women and children before there was a state of Israel, and don’t need John Kerry to encourage them to continue to do so.
These are Israel’s so-called “peace partners.” These are the people who are demanding that Kerry and Obama forget that America and Israel share common Christian-Judeo values, and Israel is a staunch ally of America.  It is time for Kerry to wake up and realize that Israel is not the problem in the Middle East – the Palestinian Arabs are.

As Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon noted, the county “will not negotiate with a gun put to our head,” and “We will make decisions that protect the interests of the state of Israel – If we had made decisions according to every boycott threat, we would not be here today.” Zionist prophet Ze’ev Jabotinsky said many years ago: “At the root of our 2000 years of suffering is our refusal to surrender. The history of the Jewish people in the exile is not the history of what they did, but the history of what was done to them.”

John Kerry: Leave Israel Alone and stand with Israel, not with those who celebrate the Boston Massacre and 9/11.

 

Also see:

Analysis: Iran Not Fazed By Kerry’s Threat of Military Option

Ali KhameneiBY: 
January 30, 2014

An analysis of statements made by top Iranian officials shows that Iran does not take Secretary of State John Kerry’s threat of military force seriously.

Kerry warned in an interview with the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya channel that if Iran were to restart its uranium enrichment program that the United States military option is “ready and prepared.”

“If they decided they’re going to throw this agreement away and go start enrichment again, sure, they can turn around,” said Kerry. “But guess what? If they do that, then the military option that is available to the United States is ready and prepared to do what it would have to do.”

An analysis by the Middle East Media Research Institute of comments made by top Iranian officials in reaction to Kerry’s statement shows that Iran thinks Kerry is bluffing.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said earlier this month that the United States doesn’t have the ability to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.

“If the Americans are not acting in a [particular] issue, the reason for this is lack of capability, not lack of hostility,” said Khamenei. “They [the Americans] have said, ‘If we could, we would dismantle Iran’s nuclear industry’–but they cannot … The recent talks showed both America’s hostility and its impotence.”

“What kind of action–or mistake–could they possibly take against Iran?” said Khamenei on Sunday.

Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Mohammad Ali Ja’fari, said that Iran has no fear of the United States’ “miniscule and shabby” military threat.

“Mr Kerry, in the eyes of the true fighters, the U.S., with all its military force, is miniscule and shabby,” said Ja’fari. “Your military option will remain only on the table.”

“Iran has no fear of this threat, and it and its revolutionary allies worldwide will unite to respond,” Ja’fari said.

On Tuesday, Iranian Army Chief of Staff Hassan Firouzabadi said that the “military option that is today on the table in the U.S. has become a joke among the nations.”

Top adviser to Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati, said that Kerry’s declarations are a bluff.

“These declarations are more of a bluff,” said Velayati. “Obviously the Americans do not have this capability, because if they did, they would not have been expelled, completely weakened, from Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi expressed disbelief that Kerry was anointed U.S. Secretary of State.

“People are wondering how a man who does not know how to speak was appointed Secretary of State,” said Shirazi.

Also see:

Kerry Boasts of ‘Pluralistic’ Syria Once Assad Gone

John-Kerry-016by Raymond Ibrahim:

U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, was recently interviewed about Syria.  While many of his assertions can be debated, one especially requires a response.

Throughout the interview, he repeatedly insisted that, if Bashar Assad would only leave power, everything would go well — especially for all of Syria’s minorities.

In his words: “I believe that a peace can protect all of the minorities: Druze, Christian, Isma‘ilis, Alawites — all of them can be protected, and you can have a pluralistic Syria, in which minority rights of all people are protected.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Kerry declared that “The world would protect the Alawites, Druze, Christians, and all minorities in Syria after the ousting of Assad.”

The problem here is that we have precedent — exact precedent.  We’ve seen this paradigm before and know precisely what happens once strongman dictators like Assad are gone.

As demonstrated in this article, in all Muslim nations where the U.S. has intervened to help topple dictators and bring democracy, it is precisely the minorities who suffer first.  And neither the U.S. nor “the world” do much about it.

After the U.S. toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Christian minorities were savagely attacked and slaughtered, and dozens of their churches were bombed (see here for graphic images). Indeed, Christians have been terrorized into near-extinction, so that today, a decade after the ousting of Saddam, more than half of them have fled Iraq.

The “world” did nothing.

Ever since U.S.-backed, al-Qaeda-linked terrorists overthrew Libya’s Qaddafi, Christians—including Americans—have been tortured and killed (including for refusing to convert), their churches bombed, and their nuns threatened.

Not much “pluralism” there.

Once the Muslim Brotherhood replaced Mubarak in Egypt — and all with U.S. support — the persecution of Copts practically became legalized, as unprecedented numbers of Christians—men, women, and children—were arrested, often receiving more than double the maximum prison sentence, under the accusation that they had “blasphemed” Islam and/or its prophet.

Not only did the U.S. do nothing — it asked the Coptic Church not to join the June Revolution that led to the ousting of the Brotherhood and Muhammad Morsi.

In short, where the U.S. works to overthrow secular autocrats, the quality of life for Christians and other minorities takes a major nosedive. In Saddam’s Iraq, Qaddafi’s Libya, and Assad’s Syria (before the U.S.-sponsored war), Christians and their churches were largely protected.

Today, Syria is the third worst nation in the world in which to be Christian, Iraq is fourth, Libya 13th, and Egypt 22nd.  Such are the fruits of U.S. intervention in the name of “democracy.”

So how can anyone, especially Christians and other minorities, have any confidence in Kerry’s repeated assurances that religious minorities will be safeguarded once secular strongman Assad is gone — and by the “world” no less — leading to a “pluralistic” Syria?

And from an American point of view, what are we to make of Kerry?  Is the U.S. Secretary of State that deluded and detached from reality, or, as Russian President Vladimir Putin once accused Kerry, also in the context of Syria: “he is lying and knows he is lying. It’s sad.”