Obama: “Immediate, Unconditional” Surrender of Israel to Hamas

obama-netanyahu (1)Front Page, by Daniel Greenfield:

Leadership. Obama has phoned up Netanyahu and come out on the side of demanding an “immediate unconditional” ceasefire that will leave Hamas and its rockets and attack plans intact.

Hamas has repeatedly violated every ceasefire, but this comes from Obama’s phone call with Netanyahu, making this another demand for a unilateral Israeli ceasefire.

The terms are:

Israel will stop defending itself. Obama will work toward Hamas’ development and economic needs, e.g. foreign aid and an end to the Israeli blockade.

Hamas gets money and open doors for smuggling weapons. Israel gets another war next year.

Building on Secretary Kerry’s efforts, the President made clear the strategic imperative of instituting an immediate, unconditional humanitarian ceasefire that ends hostilities now and leads to a permanent cessation of hostilities based on the November 2012 ceasefire agreement. The President reaffirmed the United States’ support for Egypt’s initiative, as well as regional and international coordination to end hostilities.

The President underscored the enduring importance of ensuring Israel’s security, protecting civilians, alleviating Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, and enacting a sustainable ceasefire that both allows Palestinians in Gaza to lead normal lives and addresses Gaza’s long-term development and economic needs, while strengthening the Palestinian Authority. The President stressed the U.S. view that, ultimately, any lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must ensure the disarmament of terrorist groups and the demilitarization of Gaza.

Obama is walking back a little bit of Kerry’s Qatari ceasefire proposal, but not by that much. He threw in support for Egypt’s initiative, but Qatar and Turkey are still in there as “regional and international coordination”.

Kerry’s ceasefire proposal didn’t mention Israel’s security needs at all and briefly mentioned security last. It looks like the same scenario in which Hamas’ demands are specified and enumerated, while Israel’s are filed under “security”.

Obama mentions Israeli security first, but the the rest looks like the same list of Hamas demands for an end to the Israeli blockade.

Disarmament and demilitarization are mentioned in the final sentence, but only in the contest of a lasting solution, which implies that they are a long term outcome, while Hamas’ demands happen in the short term.

“The president underscored the United States’ strong condemnation of Hamas’ rocket and tunnel attacks against Israel and reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself.”

Minus the ‘defending itself’ part.

This has become one of the Orwellian addendum to everything. Obama demands that Israel stop defending itself and then “underscores” that Israel has the right to defend itself.

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

Bewildering American Move – Operation Protective Edge

 

Published on Jul 27, 2014 by Avi Melamed

Avi Melamed discusses the latest cease fire draft proposal submitted by US Secretary of State, John Kerry and why it was rejected by Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Saudi Arabia.
Avi Melamed, former Israeli Senior Official on Arab Affairs and former Intelligence Official and educator, is today an Independent Middle East Strategic Intelligence Analyst, Regional Expert and lecturer specializing in the current affairs of the Arab and Muslim world and their impact on Israel and the region. Avi is also the Rosenzwog Overseas Middle East expert at the Eisenhower Institute, Washington DC. http://www.avimelamed.com

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

Also see:

Will Obama Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory Over Hamas?

tunnel2By Andrew C. McCarthy:

Important columns by former attorney general Michael Mukasey and Caroline Glick make the point that in Israel’s defensive war against Hamas, the main thing to focus on is not the missiles; it’s the tunnels. Perhaps more significantly, they demonstrate that the Obama administration, in its mulish appeasement of the Muslim Brotherhood-Sunni supremacist axis that even Islamic governments (indeed, even the Saudis) are shunning, is subverting a golden opportunity to achieve decisive victory over Hamas – the necessary precondition if there is ever to be a stable Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Judge Mukasey explains that Hamas’s strategic plan for jihad against Israel hinges on the large and sophisticated network of tunnels into Israel that the terror organization built while ruling Gaza during the years since Israel’s 2005 evacuation. While much attention has been drawn to “Iron Dome,” the Israeli air defense system that has responded to Hamas rocket-fire, the trigger for the Israeli ground offensive was more likely the challenge posed by the tunnel network. That challenge, Judge Mukasey writes, “became obvious on Saturday when eight Palestinian fighters wearing Israeli military uniforms emerged from a tunnel 300 yards inside Israel and killed two Israeli soldiers in a firefight.” He elaborates:

The tunnel network gave [Hamas] the ability to launch a coordinated attack within Israel like the 2008 Islamist rampage in Mumbai that killed 164 people. Recall that in 2011 Israel released more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, more than 200 of whom were under a life sentence for planning and perpetrating terror attacks. They were exchanged for one Israeli soldier,Gilad Shalit, who had been taken hostage in a cross-border raid by Hamas. Imagine the leverage that Hamas could have achieved by sneaking fighters through the tunnels and taking hostages throughout Israel; the terrorists intercepted Saturday night were carrying tranquilizers and handcuffs.

Caroline Glick strikes the same note in her latest column:

We have known for years that tunnels were a central component of Hamas’s logistical infrastructure. What began as the primary means of smuggling weapons, trainers and other war material from Hamas’s sponsors abroad developed rapidly into a strategic tool of offensive warfare against Israel.

As we have seen from the heavily armed Hamas commando squads that have infiltrated into Israel from tunnels since the start of the current round of warfare, the first goal of these offensive tunnels is to deploy terrorists into Israel to massacre Israelis. But the tunnels facilitate other terror missions as well. Israel has found tunnels with shafts rigged with bombs located directly under Israeli kindergartens. If the bombs had gone off, the buildings above would have been destroyed, taking the children down with them.

Other exposed shafts showed Hamas’s continued intense interest in hostage taking. In 2006 the terrorists who kidnapped Cpl.Gilad Schalit entered Israel and returned to Gaza through such a tunnel. Today the presence of sedatives and multiple sets of handcuffs for neutralizing hostages found in tunnel after tunnel indicate that Hamas intends to abduct several Israelis at once and spirit them back to Gaza.

There is only one way to deal with this menace once and for all: Israel has to be allowed to win, an argument I posited yesterday, here. As Ms. Glick points out,Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood, which makes it a big piece of the global jihad. Besides being every bit as much America’s enemy as Israel’s, Hamas is now not only motivated but more lethally capable than it has ever been:

Hamas’s rapid advances in both tunnel and missile technology are deeply worrisome. At a minimum, they indicate that if it is allowed to end the current round of fighting as a coherent, relatively well-armed terrorist army, Hamas will be able to rapidly rebuild and expand its capabilities. As a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas is not a stand-alone terror group. It is part of a much larger web of Islamic jihadist terror groups including al-Qaida and its affiliates as well as the Shi’ite Hezbollah.

But there is a big positive in the equation. As part of the Brotherhood and the global jihad, Hamas is also more isolated than it has ever been. As those of usopposed to U.S. intervention in Syria have contended, by not interrupting our enemies while they were squaring off against each other, we’d see their relations rupture. That is exactly what has happened.

Read more at National Review

As Gaza Battles Rages, Kerry Elbows In

Wounded IDF soldier evacuated from fighting in Gaza Strip, July 21, 2014 Source: AFP/Menahem Kahana

Wounded IDF soldier evacuated from fighting in Gaza Strip, July 21, 2014
Source: AFP/Menahem Kahana

by IPT News:

Updated: The IDF announced that seven more soldiers were killed in fighting Monday, bringing the death toll to 25 since the fighting began.

Israeli forces killed 10 terrorists Monday morning as they emerged from a tunnel inside Israel. In addition, there were dozens of terrorists in the tunnel wearing Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) uniforms, officials say.

The latest attempted infiltration shows the depth of the Hamas tunnel network. As Operation Protective Edge ends its second week, troops continue to discover and destroy tunnels each day. Yet, enough remain intact to allow Hamas to continue firing rockets at Israeli cities and to try sneaking into Israeli towns near the Gaza border.

similar attempted infiltration Thursday was thwarted when 13 heavily-armed terrorists were killed near a kibbutz in southern Israel.

The IDF released footage of Monday’s attempted infiltration:

 

Israeli troops announce uncovering and destroyed new tunnels each day. But they are discovering that the tunnels have “multiple exit and entry points … making them difficult to track and demolish,” the New York Times reported.

Meanwhile, uncertainty continues about a Hamas claim Sunday that it kidnapped an Israeli soldier. The announcement triggered jubilant street celebrations in the West Bank and Gaza. Fatah, the party which runs the Palestinian Authority and which allegedly stands against the Hamas-instigated violence, featured images of the celebration on its official Facebook page. One picture showed Fatah members handing out sweets “out of joy over the abduction of a soldier by the Palestinian resistance on the blessed soil of Gaza.”

But the name Hamas gave for the soldier was similar to one of 13 elite troops killed in fighting Sunday morning in Shejaiya. Two of those Golani Brigade soldiers killed were Americans who moved to Israel.

“There is no kidnapped Israeli soldier and those rumors are untrue,” Israel’s United Nations Ambassador Ron Prosor said on Sunday. But in an interview with CNN Monday morning, government spokesman Mark Regev was less absolute.

“It could just be Hamas bravado. We’re looking into it,” Regev said.

Meanwhile, on the heels of being caught on a live microphone mocking Israel’s “pinpoint operation,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to be in the region today to push a return to a ceasefire which ended a similar conflict in 2012.

Kerry wasn’t invited and his presence won’t be helpful, said former Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren.

Kerry brings with him a “long history” of failed diplomacy, Oren told Israel’s Channel 2 on Monday.

Meanwhile, Israeli jets reportedly bombed a site in Sudan Monday that was holding an arsenal intended for Hamas, including long-range missiles.

And last week we reported on the United Nations Relief and Human Works Agency discovery of 20 Hamas missiles hidden inside a UN school in Gaza. The agency issued a statement of outrage. Then, incredibly, it gave the rockets back to Hamas.

A senior Israeli official said the move showed that the UN agency has developed “battered-wife syndrome” and “attempts to ingratiate itself with Hamas.”

Also see:

 

In Egypt, Kerry has sympathetic words for Muslim Brotherhood. Whose side is he on?

javadi20130815073631807-300x180by Allen West:

I’ve asked the question before and continue to ask, whose side is the Obama administration — if not all Democrats — on? According to Foxnews.com, “In a hastily-organized trip marked by extraordinarily tight security, Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Egypt on Sunday, embarking on a weeklong tour of Middle Eastern and European capitals where he will try to rally support for the embattled central government in Iraq.”

Wait a minute — I thought it was up to the Iraqi government to figure this little situation out for themselves? ISIS marches on and Shiite clerics are threatening the United States of America, all the while Iran is poised to become a regional hegemony. And the Obama administration hints that it’s willing to work with Iran to resolve the crisis in Iraq. Confused yet? So far lots of talk and declarations, but nothing to halt the advance of a radical Islamist army.

But what really alarmed me were these words from a Kerry aide:

“We do not share the view of the Egyptian government about links between the Muslim Brothers and terrorist groups like ISIS [the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq]. [Egyptian leaders] need to include, and find ways to reach out to, the Muslim Brothers. … With regard to the challenge that the Muslim Brothers pose, I would characterize it more as a political challenge than a security challenge.”

Lunacy, pure unadulterated lunacy and this is what we’re sending to represent the United States? This is naiveté and incompetence but the more frightening prospect is collusion and complicity.

Read more 

Obama Adds Insult to Injury for Sharia-Condemned Young Mother in Sudan

1401911517362.cachedBy Nina Shea:
Khartoum says Meriam Ibrahim, a Christian, must hang for “apostasy.” Soon she’ll be flogged. Her husband is American, but the U.S. may require a DNA test to prove her infants are, too.
On death row in Sudan last week, Meriam Ibrahim gave birth to a girl, whom she named Maya. The 27-year-old prisoner of conscience is now a step closer to the gallows. On May 15, Meriam was sentenced to be hanged for apostasy from Islam, but the execution was ordered delayed until the then-8-month pregnant defendant delivered and weaned the baby.Notwithstanding its assertion last weekend that Meriam would be released “in a few days,” by Monday Sudan had made it clear it has no such intention. Her defense lawyer is now pursuing legal appeals, but Meriam’s  only real hope of being spared lies in the moral pressure created in the court of public opinion.

Meriam’s case turned on the question of her religious identity—whether she is lawfully a Christian, a faith she inherited from her Ethiopian Orthodox mother and embraces, or whether, because her father was a Muslim, she too must be a Muslim, even though he abandoned the family when she was young.

The Sudanese court determined that she was a Muslim under sharia law and, after she refused to renounce Christianity at trial, convicted her of apostasy. It also found her guilty of adultery for marrying a man who is Christian, which is forbidden to Muslim women in Sudan, and, for that, the court ordered that flogging with 100 lashes be added to her punishment.

The cruel treatment and flagrant denial of religious freedom are shocking even by Sudan’s abysmal human rights standards. The case has received wide attention in the international media, and it has stirred high level outrage. British Prime Minister David Cameron, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, and various U.N. rights experts are among those who have raised their voices in protest.  Mia Farrow has started a hashtag campaign (#FreeMeriam) and others are circulating petitions.

But from one quarter there has been noticeable silence. For over two weeks since the verdict was announced there has been no public statements in defense of Meriam from President Barack Obama or any high level U.S. government official. The U.S. State Department spokesperson said the agency was “deeply disturbed” by the sentence imposed on Meriam but “understood that the sentence was open to appeal”, thus seeming to suggest that the administration is heartlessly preparing to stand by and passively watch the process play out .

Read more at Daily Beast

Also see:

Sources: U.S. Held Secret Meeting With Hamas

hamas (1)By Aaron Klein:

TEL AVIV – The U.S. last week held a clandestine meeting in Egypt with Ghazi Hamad, the deputy foreign minister of Hamas, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.

The officials would not say whether the meeting was with a current member of the U.S. government or a former diplomat acting as a proxy for the Obama administration.

Messages were exchanged about Hamas’s intentions as part of a newly formed Palestinian unity government with the rival Fatah party, led by Mahmoud Abbas, the officials said.

Last week, Israel’s Haaretz newspaper quoted an unnamed White House official stating the Obama administration is leaning toward cooperating with the Hamas-Fatah Palestinian unity government, even if Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and despite objections from the Israeli government.

Previously the Middle East Quartet, made up of the U.S., Russia, European Union and United Nations, declared it would not deal with Hamas unless the terrorist group renounces violence and recognizes Israel.

The Haaretz article did not mention any U.S.-Hamas meeting.

Hamas has several times claimed it talked with U.S. surrogates about eventually establishing open relations.

Sources within Hamas previously disclosed to WND a June 2009 meeting with former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering. The sources claimed the meeting was about opening future talks with the West.

The State Department has not replied to a WND request for comment.

The gathering allegedly took place in Geneva with two Hamas leaders, Bassem Naim and Mahmoud al-Zahar. Naim is Hamas’ health minister, while al-Zahar is one of the main Hamas leaders in Gaza.

Pickering’s meeting with Hamas in 2009 served as an “important step” to open eventual dialogue between the Islamic group and the Obama administration, Hamas’ chief political adviser in Gaza, Ahmed Yousef, told WND that year.

At the time, the State Department told the Jerusalem Post the meeting between Pickering and Hamas was not sanctioned by the White House.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly stressed Pickering acted as a private citizen. Kelly said he was unaware of any prior U.S. governmental coordination with the former diplomat about the meeting with Hamas.

Pickering was the State Department’s lead investigator on the Benghazi attack.

Read more at WND

EXECUTION COULD COME THURSDAY FOR YOUNG PREGNANT MOTHER IN SUDAN UNLESS SHE ‘REVERTS’ TO ISLAM

Eleza JohnBreitbart, by FAITH J. H. MCDONNELL:

For the past couple of weeks, the brutal abduction of some 300 schoolgirls in Chibok, Borno State, in northern Nigeria, has sparked outrage against their abductors, Boko Haram. Some journalists have even been prompted to take such phrases as “Islamic extremists” and “Islamist terrorists” out of the mothballs where they have been for the past five or six years.  There is no way to soft pedal the obscenity of selling young girls as slaves because they are “infidels.” But the war against women waged by Islam is not just raging in Nigeria.

The same ideology, the same way of looking at and controlling the world, is now threatening the life of a young mother in Sudan. Take all the misogyny, the rage against infidels, and the belief of the supremacism of strict adherence to the Koran that allows for no other way of life manifested in Boko Haram, telescope it, and you have the death sentence given to Meriam Yahia Ibrahim, 27, by the Islamist Government of Sudan.

Ibrahim, who is almost nine months pregnant, is married to South Sudanese Christian American citizen, Daniel Wani. She was arrested on Sunday, May 11, and incarcerated in Omdurman Prison in Khartoum, along with the couple’s two-year-old son, Martin. Wani, who lives in New Hampshire, had been in the process of applying for, but had not yet received, a spousal visa for his wife to come to the United States with him.

Although Ibrahim was raised as a Christian by her Ethiopian Orthodox mother, under Shariah she is considered a Muslim because her father was a Muslim. Therefore, her marriage to Wani was declared invalid and she was sentenced to be given 100 lashes for adultery since the marriage was deemed void.

  According to Sudanese human rights activist Safwan Abdalmoniem of the Hardwired organization, Judge Abbas Al Khalifa of the Criminal Court in al-Haj Yousif in Khartoum Bahri also sentenced Ibrahim to death for apostasy when she told the court that she was indeed a Christian and lawfully married to Wani.  

The Islamist regime has very graciously given Ibrahim an opportunity to avoid the death sentence, which otherwise is supposed to be carried out onThursday, May 15. All she needs to do is to renounce her Christian faith and convert to (or as they phrase it “return to”) Islam, a process referred to as istitabah in Arabic. She would, of course, be separated from her husband forever, and it is unclear what would happen to her children. 

According to Abdalmoniem, Ibrahim’s lawyer has requested that she be transferred to a hospital for treatment of complications related to her pregnancy, but the court has refused. The African Center for Justice and Peace Studies further reveals that the court invited two organizations, including one, Munazzamat al-Da’wa al-Islamiia, which is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, to ‘counsel’ Ms. Ibrahim on her faith. This young mother is being harassed and intimidated to convert not just for her own sake, but for the sake of her unborn child who will die with her. 

In response to this violation of human rights and religious freedom, the United States Embassy in Khartoum issued – not a hashtag – but a reprimand to the Sudanese government in which they were joined by the Embassies of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the Netherlands. 

After expressing their obligatory “deep concern,” the Embassies called “upon the Government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, including one’s right to change one’s faith or beliefs, enshrined in international human rights law as well as in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution.” They also urged “Sudanese legal authorities to approach Ms. Meriam’s case with justice and compassion that is in keeping with the values of the Sudanese people” and expressed concern “over the brutal sentence that could be faced with respect to the finding of adultery.”

“We need the U.S. and others to pressure the Government of Sudan to release my wife and son and cancel the charges against her,” Wani told Abdalmoniem.

It is good that the U.S. Embassy statement expresses a unified message from the embassies of four nations. Its failing is that the message, like so many in the present day, is tepid and lacks the pressure of which Wani speaks. The United States government should not just call on Khartoum to respect the right to freedom of religion, but should demand the release of the wife of an American citizen, affirming Meriam Yahia Ibrahim’s right to practice her Christian faith and be married to a Christian husband. In addition, Meriam’s story should be spread throughout the country today – whether with hashtags or otherwise. 

Time is running out to stop Islam’s war on women from winning one more battle. 

Faith J. H. McDonnell directs the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s Religious Liberty Program and Church Alliance for a New Sudan and is the author of Girl Soldier: A Story of Hope for Northern Uganda’s Children (Chosen Books, 2007).

Also see:

 

Nigerian ‘Sex-Slaves’ Disrupt Obama Narrative on Islam

20140514_BokoHaramgirlsmay14L

by :

Islamic law permits the possession of concubines, or sex slaves.  This has been demonstrated countless times, including through Islamic clerics quoting Islamic scriptures, and through ordinary Muslims, past and presentacting on it.

That said, Islamic sanctioned sex-slavery does not perturb the Western world simply because the powers-that-be-specifically academia, media, and government-ignore it, and all other unsavory phenomena associated with Islam, out of existence.

Interesting, therefore, are the responses from the authorities-comical one might even say-when one of these everyday anecdotes actually does surface to the general public.

Enter the recent abduction of nearly 300, mostly Christian, teenage schoolgirls in Nigeria at the hands of Boko Haram, yet another Islamic terrorist organization plaguing mankind.  As expected, the group justified its actions in Islamic terms, with its leader declaring on video, “I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah….There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell.”

Of course, for those in the know, none of this is surprising.   In March 2012, Boko Haram warned that it would do just this, declaring that it was preparing to “strike fear into the Christians of the power of Islam by kidnapping their women.”

Moreover, of all the human rights abuses I catalog in Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians-and these are depressingly many-Boko Haram’s has resulted in more Christians killed than in the rest of the world combined.

The group has bombed or burned hundreds of Christian churches in the last several years, most when packed for service, including on Christmas Day and Easter Day, leaving countless worshippers dead or dismembered. In its bid to cleanse northern Nigeria of all Christian presence-a repeatedly stated goal-it has threatened to poison the food eaten by Christians and stormed areas where Christians and Muslims were intermingled, singling the Christians out before slitting their throats.

Go to my monthly “Muslim Persecution of Christians” series (currently 31 in all), and see the innumerable atrocities that Boko Haram has been responsible for in the last two-and-a-half years-many of which make the recent Nigerian girls’ abduction pale in comparison.

The real news here is that the so-called mainstream media, which generally downplays or ignores Boko Haram’s terror campaign (see here for example), actually reported on this particular atrocity, prompting both Western and Muslim authorities-who are much more accustomed to, and comfortable with, pretending these sorts of things don’t exist-to respond in awkward, hypocritical and, in a word, foolish, ways. Thus,

Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. had been in touch with Nigeria “from day one” of the crisis. But repeated offers of U.S. assistance were ignored until Kerry got on the phone Tuesday with [Nigerian president] Jonathan amid growing international concern and outrage over the fate of the girls in the weeks since their abduction….  “I think now the complications that have arisen have convinced everybody that there needs to be a greater effort,” Kerry said at a State Department news conference. “And it will begin immediately. I mean, literally, immediately.”

Seconds before Boko Haram decapitate a Christian on video

“Convinced everybody”?  Is Kerry referring to himself?  After all, there might not have been any need for “greater effort,” the need to act “immediately. I mean, literally, immediately” had Kerry only let the Nigerian president and government do their job one year ago, when they were waging a particularly strong and successful offensive against Boko Haram in the very same region that the schoolgirls were recently kidnapped.

Back then, in May 2013, soon after Nigerian forces killed 30 Boko Haram members, Reuters reported that “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry issued a strongly worded statement [to the Nigerian president] saying: “We are … deeply concerned by credible allegations that Nigerian security forces are committing gross human rights violations, which, in turn, only escalate the violence and fuel extremism” from Boko Haram.

Read more: Family Security Matters 

The Winds of Anti-Semitism

220244_25618870

Israeli PM Netanyahu has said that there will be no peace talks unless Hamas recognizes Israel.

by Justin O Smith:

For the past sixty-six years of this modern era, Israel has been forced to defend itself, day in and day out, from a cohesive group of fifty-seven Islamic nations across the globe, even though, since its new founding__”the Jewish State, to be called ‘Israel'”__ on “the eve of the Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), Israel has appealed to the Muslims to preserve peace and participate in the rebuilding of the State on the basis of “full and equal citizenship”. But now, the decades have shown that the Islamofascists want nothing less than all of “Palestine” and the destruction of Israel, and Israel is doubly indemnified by an evil wind of anti-Semitism blowing through the international community, the U.S. State Department and the Obama administration.

On April 23, 2014, a nine-month long “peace talk” series of negotiations collapsed, after the White House and Secretary of State John Kerry seemed reluctant to introduce a more reasoned approach, that did not require so much more of Israel than it did the Palestinian Authority. Kerry was on a fool’s errand, if he actually thought Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would agree to expel 650,000 Jews living in so-called “Palestinian territory”, such as East Jerusalem; this same day, Kerry’s final-status agreement died, as Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) leaders held hands aloft with those of the Hamas terrorists, and Israel immediately froze any further talks indefinitely.

On April 28th, 2014 during a White House meeting, Obama attempted to coerce and intimidate Israel by issuing a veiled threat that the U.S. might not be able to properly defend or protect Israel, if the U.S. led peace talks were not soon renewed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded that he would never compromise on Israel’s security.

A few days after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas signed a unity deal with Hamas and the Islamic Jihad terrorist groups, John Kerry told the Trilateral Commission (April 29), in a blatant act of anti-Semitism, that if Israel does not cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, it will either cease to be a Jewish state or it will become “an apartheid state.” This represents the first time a sitting U.S. Secretary of State has publicly endorsed an anti-Semitic view of Jews and the Jewish state.

With anti-Semites such as Obama and John Kerry at the helm of these peace talks, how could anyone expect them to succeed?

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, Apartheid is a crime of intent, not outcome. The Palestinians across their political and ideological spectrum have the malicious intent to found a state based on anti-Jewish bigotry and ethnic cleansing, while no Israeli leader or faction has any intention of basing national policies on racial subjugation in any form.

And yet, it is the Palestinians who demand that many areas designated for their homeland must be cleansed of all Jewish presence, before they will agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it. These “peace-loving” Muslims are so imbued with genocidal hatred for Jews that they insist all 650,000 Jews living in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria must be forcibly removed from their homes.

So who is it that wants an “Apartheid State”, if not the PLO and their champion John Kerry?

To make matters worse, Tzipi Livni, Israeli Justice Minister and chief negotiator, has regularly weakened Israel’s position and enabled Kerry’s hostile and bigoted policy views, because she owes both positions largely to the Obama administration’s support. And, then of course there are the leftist Jews of J-Street, an American Jewish group, who use deceptive rhetoric to agitate against Israel, have embraced the PLO’s unity pact with Hamas and the Islamic Jihad and are now defending Kerry’s “apartheid” remarks.

Last month  President Abbas signed 15 international treaties after the collapse of the peace talks. Two of these were the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1977 protocols on the laws of war. By signing these, the PLO leaders believe they are now recognized as an “occupied state”, which if true would undermine Israel’s contention that the 1967 territories are disputed.

Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the PLO’s central council, stated on April 29th: “We will proceed with UN treaties and gradually into UN agencies, the last of which will be the International Criminal Court”, as he suggested that the Palestinian’s would pursue Israel’s “war crimes” and that “There will be a moment when Israel will be brought to justice.”

Former Mossad intelligence director, Efraim Halevy told Israel Radio, “In the eyes of our rivals, it is in the end of the day a sign of weakness__ because they get something without giving anything”. But a senior officer stated, “Official rebuke, special reports, fact-finding missions and condemnations__ they (the PLO) are not ready for that,” as he alluded to how easy it is to show that human rights are being systematically violated everyday in Gaza.

“On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their state is irrevocable” (The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel).

Unilateral actions hold very clear lessons and dangers, as Israel learned through a 2005 disengagement from Gaza with thousands of rockets raining down on southern Israel, something Mahmoud Abbas may well soon discover. PLO negotiator, Saeb Erekat recently stated, “Israel cannot maintain the status quo”, and he is right, for reasons far removed from his own.

The propaganda and twisted rhetoric of the Islamofascists/ the PLO have led them into a dream of destruction and bloodshed, of injustice masquerading as justice and rights based upon falsehoods. And now, Abbas is considering a move to disband the Palestinian Authority and its security forces, to burden Israel with the responsibility for “the state under occupation”, scape-goating the Jewish state and inhumanely using “Palestinian refugees” as a war weapon against Israel; so, in light of this fact, Israel must move swiftly towards a One-State Solution, annexing Gaza and the West Bank, and in the process, Israel must correct the detrimental effects of 66 years of bending over backwards in the name of peace and human dignity.

“This is the natural right of the Jewish people to be the masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state…..Placing our trust in the Almighty, we affix our signatures to this proclamation….on the soil of the Homeland, in the city of Tel Aviv…..” signed: David Ben – Gurion and 37 other founders of the State of Israel (Establishment of the State of Israel).

Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Blocked Terrorist Designation for Boko Haram

clinton_050614By Andrew C. McCarthy:

“We must stand up to terrorism,” bleated Hillary Clinton a few days ago in a tweet expressing outrage against Boko Haram, the jihadist organization that has abducted hundreds of young girls in Nigeria. Yet, when she was actually in a position to stand up to Boko Haram’s terrorism as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton instead protected the group.

At the Daily Beast, Josh Rogin reports:

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

While Mrs. Clinton now issues indignant tweets, Mr. Rogin elaborates on her failure to mention

that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram provided a “safe haven” for al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

As Mr. Rogin further details, placing an organization on the terrorist list enables the government to use various investigative tools for law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering purposes. It also squeezes the organization by criminalizing the provision of material support to it and the conduct of business with it.

After numerous Boko Haram atrocities, Republicans attempted to force Secretary Clinton to designate the group or explain why she refused to do so. The State Department heavily lobbied against the legislation. Only after John Kerry replaced Clinton, and after a series of jihadist bombings against churches and other targets, did the State Department finally relent and add Boko Haram to the terrorist list last November.

The excuses now being offered in explanation of Clinton’s dereliction are specious. As Rogin explains, Clinton’s State Department claimed that Boko Haram was merely a local group with parochial grievances that was not a threat to the United States. Have a look, though, at the State Department’s list, here. Several of the listed groups are waging local terrorist campaigns that do not threaten our country—the Basque ETA, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Real Irish Republican Army, etc. A significant reason for having the list is to promote international cooperation against terrorism and discourage its use against anyone anywhere. The fact that a terrorist organization may have only local grievances and may not directly imperil the U.S. has never been thought a reason to exclude it from the list.

Fox News has further reported another rationale of Clinton apologists: Hillary did not want to raise Boko Haram’s profile and assist its recruiting which, they reason, would be the effect of designation by the Great Satan. That is ridiculous. The main point of having the list, and the sanctions that accompany a terrorist designation, is to weaken the organization by depriving it of assets and material support. The logic of what Clinton supporters are claiming is that U.S. counterterrorism law — much of which was put in place by the administration of President Bill Clinton — does more harm than good. Does anyone think they really believe that?

What happened here is obvious, although the commentariat is loath to connect the dots. Boko Haram is an Islamic-supremacist organization. Mrs. Clinton, like the Obama administration more broadly, believes that appeasing Islamists — avoiding actions that might give them offense, slamming Americans who provoke them — promotes peace and stability. (See Egypt for a good example of how well this approach is working.) Furthermore, if you are claiming to have “decimated” al-Qaeda, as the Obama administration was claiming to have done in the run-up to the 2012 election, the last thing you want to do is add jihadists to the terror list (or beef up security at diplomatic posts in jihadist hot spots, or acknowledge that jihadist rioting in Cairo or jihadist attacks in Benghazi are something other than “protests” inspired by “an Internet video” . . .)

Read more at National Review

Also see:

John Kerry, Real Palestinian Sharia, and Imagined Israeli ‘Apartheid’

download (97)PJ Media, by Andrew Bostom:

Last Friday, during a closed-door meeting with a room of influential world leaders, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry opined that if Israel failed to accept his latest “peace formulation,” the country risked becoming an “apartheid state with second-class citizens.”

This statement was redolent with Kerry’s trademark mental and moral cretinism. For over a decade, the disputed territories in Gaza and Judea-Samaria under Fatah, and/or Hamas control have been under a real, not a theoretical system of Islamic Sharia-based religious apartheid.

After more than thirteen centuries of almost uninterrupted jihad in historical Palestine, it is not surprising that a finalized constitution proposed for a Palestinian Arab state declared all aspects of Palestinian state law to be subservient to the Sharia, in harmony with the popular will (i.e., 79.9 percent of Palestinians want the PA to follow the Sharia—Islamic religious law— including 68.6 percent who wanted the Sharia as the exclusive code of law, according to data published by the Palestinian Center for Research and Cultural Dialogue, March 3, 2005). Moreover, contemporary Palestinian Authority religious intelligentsia openly support restoration of the oppressive system of dhimmitude within a Muslim-dominated Israel as well.

During a Friday sermon broadcasted live on June 6, 2001 on PA TV, from the Sheik ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza, Palestinian Authority employee Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi reiterated these sentiments with regard to Jews:

We welcome, as we did in the past, any Jew who wants to live in this land as a Dhimmi, just as the Jews have lived in our countries, as Dhimmis, and have earned appreciation, and some of them have even reached the positions of counselor or minister here and there. We welcome the Jews to live as Dhimmis, but the rule in this land and in all the Muslim countries must be the rule of Allah.

An assessment of such anachronistic, discriminatory views was provided by the Catholic archbishop of the Galilee, Butrus Al- Mu’alem, who, in a June 1999 statement, dismissed the notion of modern dhimmis submitting to Muslims:

It is strange to me that there remains such backwardness in our society; while humans have already reached space, the stars, and the moon . . . there are still those who amuse themselves with fossilized notions.

Eleven years ago (i.e., in 2003, prior to Hamas’ electoral victory in 2006), during a briefing for a visiting United States congressional delegation, then Vatican representative to Israel,Archbishop Pietro Sambi, informed US lawmakers that the Palestinian Authority’s new approved state constitution, funded by the US Agency for International Development, provided no juridical status for any religion other than Islam in the emerging Palestinian Arab entity. The Papal Nuncio warned, in addition, that the Palestinian Authority (PA) had adopted Sharia as the overarching guiding principle of their legal code, thus mandating the absolute supremacy of Muslims over non-Muslims as a matter of law. (Archbishop Sambi also initiated a study of the new PA textbooks, which the Vatican deemed to be brazenly Antisemitic.)

The Hamas contingent at the municipal council of Bethlehem confirmed (as reported by Karby Legget in the December 23, 2005, edition of the Wall Street Journal, p. A1) the organizations plan to reinstitute the humiliating jizya, and such policies, even their threatened implementation, will likely exacerbate the ongoing Christian exodus from Arab-controlled Judea/Samaria, especially Bethlehem. An early April 2006 Reuters report indicated that one thousand Christians per year were leaving these areas due to Muslim depredations, including assaults on Christians, uprooting their olive trees, and scrawling graffiti that depicts nuns being raped. After Hamas issued a warning to the YMCA of Qalqilya to close its offices and leave town, as reported on April 21, 2006, a Qalqilya Christian leader lamented:

The face of the new Hamas government is coming to the forefront now that they finally took over and have a lot more confidence. They want to create a territory free of Christians and Jews.

Just over three weeks ago (April 8, 2014) speaking at Uppsala University, a remarkably intrepid 26 year old Palestinian woman, Christy Anastas gave a forthright lecture (video here) “update” about the ongoing human rights abuses (predictably) engendered by this Sharia-based system of “law” adopted by Fatah-Hamas, including:

  • The forced payment of the Koranic poll-tax (per verse 9:29), or jizya (i.e., from the etymology of the word, per Edward Lane, the great 19th century Arabic-English lexicographer, “the tax paid in lieu of being slain”). Anastas explains, “if you are a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian, you have to pay protection money” (to those she aptly terms, “mafia”)…”My uncle had to pay this protection money.” Her uncle stopped making his jizya payments, whereupon he was accused of being a “traitor,” imprisoned, and then executed, right in front of his own home.
  • The grotesque violations of women’s rights (Anastas proclaims, “women don’t have rights there [in Fatah-Hamas controlled areas];” “women are treated as possessions there”), resulting from application of the Sharia, including legally sanctioned polygamy and honor killings.
  • The sheer absence of freedom of speech—another hallmark of the Sharia: “Israel doesn’t threaten to kill us (Christians) for sharing our views, Palestinians do!”

John Kerry should have viewed Christy Anastas’ lecture before belching forth his latest calumny. But I doubt it would have chastened him.

Also see:

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