UN Report Places Some Blame on Palestinian Leaders for Gaza Humanitarian Crisis

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, July 12, 2017:

The United Nations has just issued a report entitled “GAZA TEN YEARS LATER – United Nations Country Team in the occupied Palestinian.” It was written from the false perspective that Gaza is still part of the so-called Palestinian territory “occupied” by Israel, which represents the official position of the United Nations as a whole. However, the report also contains some insights into the destructive pattern of conduct by the Palestinian leadership, contributing significantly to the misery of the people of Gaza.

If Israel were truly the “occupier” of Gaza, 12 years after its unilateral withdrawal and 10 years after Hamas’s violent takeover of Gaza from Palestinian Authority control, Hamas would not be ruling Gaza, let alone remaining free to use the territory as a launching pad for terrorist attacks against Israel. Indeed, the UN report itself demonstrated some cognitive dissonance on the question regarding who actually runs Gaza. In one breath the report asserted that Israel is the occupying power in Gaza because of “the control that Israel retained on Gaza’s air space, sea space and external borders continuously.” However, the report also noted the “exercise of government-like functions and territorial control” by the “de facto authorities in Gaza” – i.e., Hamas. The report described how “Hamas has increasingly tightened its grip on power” since seizing control and “was able to sustain its de facto authority and build up its military strength.”

Moreover, the UN report effectively undercut the premise that the Palestinians have achieved the prerequisites for recognition as a legitimate state, regardless of its authors’ intentions. There are severe unresolved divisions between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, leading to separate and competing governing authorities and sets of laws within the territories that the Palestinians claim as the basis for their state. Consider the following verbatim quote from the UN report:

“The Hamas takeover of Gaza has had a significant impact on the legislative, judicial and executive branches. The fact that no presidential or legislative elections have been held in Palestine since 2006 has also created a democratic deficit that undermines the legitimacy of state institutions and their actions on both sides of the divide… The division has resulted in the establishment of two different lawmaking processes and the enactment of diverging laws in Gaza and the West Bank, further eroding the unity and coherence of the future state of Palestine.”

There is no harmonization of the legal frameworks applied by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority respectively within areas under their control, due to the division of basic government authority between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. The result is “the establishment of a parallel justice system in the Gaza Strip,” according to the UN report. “In addition,” the report concluded, “the lack of a harmonized legal framework and judiciary has at times created situations whereby courts in the West Bank have refused to implement verdicts issued by Gaza courts and vice versa, to the great detriment of the individuals and families involved.”

Moreover, the UN report found that the division of authority has “caused a split of the Palestinian civil service, impacting the delivery of basic services such as education and health care.”

Whenever Palestinian UN delegates participate in UN meetings, representing the “non-member observer state” of Palestine, a title bestowed by the UN General Assembly several years ago, they proudly display their name plate saying “State of Palestine.” However, while the moniker that appears on the nameplate used to describe the Palestinians’ status at the UN may make the Palestinians feel good about themselves, it is meaningless in practical terms.

The United Nations Gaza report called into question the “legitimacy” of the Palestinians’ self-proclaimed “state institutions.” It found no coherent set of laws governing the Palestinian people as a whole. It found an utter lack of government capacity to provide basic public services. All this was not Israel’s fault.  It was due instead to the fundamental, unresolved division of authority between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. The result is felt directly by the people of Gaza.

As the UN report stated:

“The Hamas coup in Gaza in June 2007 and the administrative division that followed between the PA and Hamas has had a significant impact on administration and public services in Gaza…Ten years later, the Palestinian divide shows no sign of narrowing. The divisiveness and mistrust between Fatah and Hamas poses significant challenges to the development of the Strip.”

To be sure, the UN Gaza report sharply criticized Israel for contributing to the dire conditions in Gaza. It said that Israel’s “restrictions on the access and movement of people and goods, ultimately amounting to a blockade by sea, air and land” violated international law. The report accused Israel of carrying out a blockade that “constitutes a form of collective punishment on the civilian population in Gaza contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, applicable to the occupied Territory.”

Aside from the fact that Israel no longer “occupies” Gaza, as discussed earlier, Israel’s self-defense measures in the face of Hamas’s rocket and terror tunnel attacks from Gaza are in accord with international law. Indeed, the UN report itself referred to what it described as “the military build-up in Gaza by Hamas and other militant groups, which continued and intensified over the past decade, including the development, stockpiling and firing of rockets capable of reaching deep into Israel and the construction of sophisticated tunnels used for kidnappings and terrorist attacks in Israel.” The UN report documented how Israel’s restrictions on movements of people and goods into and out of Gaza increased only after “significant military escalation and rocket attacks by Hamas and other armed groups on Israel.”

Moreover, Israel has not imposed anything near what could be considered a complete blockade. Far from it, Israel has taken substantial national security risks in allowing into Gaza all manner of humanitarian aid and commercial products. Exports out of Gaza have also been liberalized.

As usual, the UN report on Gaza was unfairly critical of Israel. That’s known as “a dog biting a man” story. However, the fact that this UN report finally sheds some light specifically on the responsibility the Palestinian leaders themselves bear for the present plight of the people living in Gaza is “a man bites dog” story as far as the UN is concerned.

Also see:

Haley Urges UN To Drop Anti-Israel Hebron Resolution

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Deborah Danon, July 4, 2017:

TEL AVIV – U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley called on the secretary-general of the UN and the UNESCO chief to oppose the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to inscribe Hebron’s old city and the Tomb of the Patriarchs on its list of endangered sites under the “State of Palestine.”

“The Tomb of the Patriarchs, which is sacred to three faiths, is under no immediate threat. Such a designation risks undermining the seriousness such an assessment by UNESCO should have,” Haley wrote in a letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova.

A vote on the motion is scheduled for Friday during the World Heritage Committee’s meeting in Krakow, Poland. The Palestinian Authority sped up the process with claims of “Israeli violations… including vandalism” at the site.

“Many precious sites — from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Libya to Iraq to Syria — are under real and imminent threat of destruction today. They urgently demand UNESCO’s full and immediate attention, which should not be wasted on this sort of symbolic action,” Haley wrote in her letter.

“As the United States is engaged in trying to increase the chances of a peace deal that is in the best interest of both Israelis and Palestinians, this effort at UNESCO… is particularly ill-timed and unfortunate,” Haley continued. “I hope you will join the United States in opposing this measure.”

UNESCO has come under fire by Israel, the US and other nations for a series of moves deemed anti-Israel, most recently in May, when its executive board ratified a resolution denying any Jewish legal or historical Israeli links to Jerusalem and calling Israel an “occupying power” in its own capital.

That resolution also criticized the Israeli government for archaeological projects in the capital and in Hebron and lambasted its naval blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

Guterres, considered more sympathetic to Israel than his predecessors, is slated to visit the Jewish state next month. He has been critical of efforts to politicize UNESCO. Bokovo, who will end her term as the agency’s director-general later this year, also has spoken out in the past against anti-Israel resolutions that deny the Jewish people’s link to religious sites in the Holy Land.

Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO, Carmel Shama-Hacohen, thanked Haley for her support.

“Ambassador Nikki Haley’s letter speaks for itself about the absurdity that is the persecution of the Jewish state in every international forum and especially at UNESCO,” he said. “Unfortunately, no new US ambassador to UNESCO has yet been appointed, and if only we had on our side here an ambassador who had the determination and the courage of Nikki Haley, the conditions of our battle would be entirely different.”

Last week, Israel banned a fact-finding mission from entering Hebron ahead of the vote.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to grant permits to a group of scholars from the International Council on Monuments and Sites.

A few days later, Israel’s mission to the UN petitioned UNESCO to conduct a secret ballot for the vote.

Also  see:

***

Deborah Weiss facebook post:

“In the midst of all the chatter about irrelevant tweets, one thing that has gotten lost is the hidden gem, US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley. Now, she might have been bland as a governor, but boy is she kicking butt at the UN! I listened to a good portion of her testimony in front of the House Committee on Foreign Relations, held June 28th by my good friend, Chairman Ed Royce. And this is what I can tell you about Ambassador Haley:

1) She is working to get rid of “Agenda Item 7” at the UN Human Rights Council. For those of you who don’t know what this is, it is a STRUCTURAL PERMANENT AGENDA ITEM specifically pertaining to ISRAEL ONLY, used as one of the many mechanisms used at the UN to penalize, bash and unfairly criticize Israel. Her goal is to get rid of it by 2021 and she is working with the “highest levels” of the US government to get this done;

2) She has made it CLEAR in regard to the SHAMEFUL UN RESOLUTION 2334, which was INITIATED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, and which CONDEMNED the Israeli settlements in a way that made this territory considered “occupied” rather than “disputed”, made it easier for the EU to use BDS product labels, and made it easier to boycott companies that do business there, that though this resolution cannot be REPEALED, that there is a new sheriff in town, that the US DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS, that it is “a thorn in our side”, that is SHOULD NEVER BE MENTIONED, and that THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN;

3) that the UN CAN NO LONGER TAKE US FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR GRANTED forward looking, that it must be earned and put to good use;

4) that we must STIMULATE GENUINE ELECTIONS on the UN Human Rights Council, rather than have the countries listed on the ballots a priori, so that the elections aren’t “real”;

5) that Money to the PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY SHOULD BE BASED ON THEM STOPPING THEIR “PAY FOR SLAY” Martyrdom program (where they pay the families of suicide bombers, encouraging and supporting this behavior), rather than the way we determine pay currently, which is by the percent of time that the PA votes with the US at the UN;

6) When the Ambassador was challenged/lambasted by a Democrat Congressman on US “leadership”, trying to cite our “lack of leadership” on the Paris Climate Change Accord and also citing a Pew Poll (because we learned how accurate polls are during the presidential election), and complaining that Haley isn’t addressing “Russian interference in our election” at the UN; HALEY DID A BANG UP JOB! She’s NOT MEALY MOUTHED and she TAKES NO GUFF!

She correctly stated that: a) The US has to make the decisions that are in the best interest of the US and that the Climate Accord was not because it would chase away jobs and lose business for America; b) that our refusal to be part of the Paris Accord does NOT mean we will abandon our commitment to be good stewards for the environment; c) that she doesn’t know what kind of coffee he’s drinking but in her experience at the UN, all the countries have a new respect for America: they know we’re here, we’re back, we’re strong and we’re heard, (and she invited him to visit the UN to see for himself); and d) regarding Russia, she said she does believe that Russia has tried to run interference in our election, that she has told this to the President, that she has stated it publicly, and that the President has never told her to refrain from making any comments on Russia, but that the UN deals with international issues and that since this is a domestic issue, never once has anyone at the UN asked her about it.

7) when grilled about various comments that the Congressman thought the President should have made, Haley replied, “Sir, I work for the President. Any thing I say or do, he supports. We are on the same team.” The testimony is too long to listen to all of it (7 hours), but you might want to google C-Span’s link and listen to 30 minutes or so of her opening statement and the Q&A. The jerk who tried to give her a hard time is Congressman Meeks from NY,

8) She is also working hard to fight against the anti-Israel BDS movement, being a STAUNCH ALLY of ISRAEL, in STARK CONTRAST to the prior Administration. Nikki Haley is AMAZING! GO NIKKI!”

Misogyny Meet Irony: Saudi Arabia Elected To United Nation’s Women’s Rights Commission

Photo Opportunity: The Secretary-General with H.E. Mr. Adel Ahmed Al-Jubeir, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

Jonathan Turley’s blog, by Jonathan Turley, April 24, 2017:

If you like your misogyny with a heavy serving of irony, you could do no better than the United Nations this week after Saudi Arabia was elected to a  2018-2022 term on the Commission on the Status of Women, the U.N. agency that, according to its website, is “exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.”  As with Iran being put on the Commission, the irony would be humorous if there were not millions of victims over decades of abuse by these countries.  Previously, Saudi Arabia taking over the top spot on the Human Rights Commission was viewed as unbelievable, but the entry on the Commission on the Status of Women sets a level of irony that may be unsurpassable.

Notably, various groups demanded to know what countries voted for the inclusion.  Only 7 of 54 ECOSOC states opposed the inclusion and many want the EU countries to reveal their votes. It is absurd that such votes should be taken on secret ballots.

Now that Saudi Arabia is a protector of women’s rights, it may want to immediately call for an investigation of the country responsible for:

Barring women from being able to travel without the permission of men;

Flogging women for driving;

Jailing a man for protesting the treatment of women;

Arresting women for ripped jeans or “Western haircuts“;

Stoning a woman to death (while just giving her male love flogging) for sex outside of marriage;

Sentencing human right activists to death;

Persecuting lawyers who help rape victims; 

Flogging rape victims;

Permitting child bride arranged marriages;

Closing Women’z health clubs as UnIslamic;

Arresting women without head coverings;

Arresting even foreign women who sit next to unrelated men in public places;

Flogging women over use of bad language; 

Enforcing the right to beat wives; and

Barring women from a Women’s Rights Conference.

That is only a partial list for the new Saudi Commissioner and it does not even require going outside of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

***

Also see:

Nikki Haley Puts UN Anti-Israelism In Crosshairs

nikki-haley-un-sec-councio-640x480

New ambassador makes clear change has arrived.

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, February 21, 2017:

The Trump administration’s U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has hit the ground running.  She spoke truth to power by strongly calling out the United Nations for its anti-Israel bias and double standards. Her predecessor, Samantha Power, never came close.

After attending her first regular meeting of the UN Security Council devoted to the Middle East, including the Palestinian-Israeli situation, Ambassador Haley remarked to reporters, “The first thing I want to do is talk about what we just saw in there.” Calling the meeting “a bit strange,” Ambassador Haley noted how the focus of blame for everything that has gone wrong in the Middle East seemed to be placed almost entirely on Israel.

“The discussion was not about Hezbollah’s illegal build-up of rockets in Lebanon,” Ambassador Haley said. “It was not about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists. It was not about how we defeat ISIS. It was not about how we hold Bashar al-Assad accountable for the slaughter of hundreds and thousands of civilians. No, instead, the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East. I am new around here, but I understand that’s how the Council has operated, month after month, for decades. I am here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for Israel. I’m here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to the UN’s anti-Israel bias.”

Ambassador Haley was speaking against the backdrop of the anti-Israel Security Council Resolution 2334 passed last December, which the Obama administration refused to veto. “We will never repeat the terrible mistake of Resolution 2334 and allow one-sided Security Council resolutions to condemn Israel,” Ambassador Haley declared. “The outrageously biased resolutions from the Security Council and the General Assembly only make peace harder to attain by discouraging one of the parties from going to the negotiating table.”

How refreshing it is to hear such sincere words of support for Israel after eight years of Israel-bashing by the Obama administration. Former Ambassador Power had hypocritically mouthed some formulaic acknowledgements of bias against Israel in the Security Council and other UN forums, but while contributing strongly to that bias herself.

Resolution 2334 reeks of such bias. Yet Power strongly defended the Obama administration’s decision to abstain rather than veto it. The resolution outrageously declared that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.” When it came to the resolution’s call to prevent “acts of terror” and “to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric,” the resolution referred elliptically to “both parties.” Power could not defend why the resolution failed to call out the Palestinian Authority or Hamas by name for committing acts of terror, incitement to violence and glorification of terrorists. Her lame explanation to reporters at her farewell UN press conference was that Resolution 2334 “was not our resolution, so I think you can probably pose those questions to the people who were negotiating the text.” Of course, she could have insisted on including such specific references to Palestinian terror and incitement to violence in violation of international law in the resolution itself as a condition for a U.S. abstention. She didn’t. Instead, add a display of moral cowardice to Power’s list of “accomplishments” during her tenure as UN ambassador.

Things will be different from now on. And it is not just a change in words and tone. Expect concrete actions demonstrating the Trump administration’s moral clarity in holding the UN organization to account.

For example, Ambassador Haley objected to the proposed appointment of the Palestinian Authority’s former Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to become the next UN envoy to Libya. Palestine is not a full member of the United Nations. It is just an observer state. Israel, on the other hand, is a full member state. Yet the new UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, sought to elevate a Palestinian official to a high UN Secretariat post, while Israel has been denied the opportunity to fill such a position. Inner City Press has reported that, according to its sources, “the nomination was really by Jeffrey Feltman, the Obama administration’s appointee to head the UN Department of Political Affairs.” Feltman served previously as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs in the Obama administration. Through Feltman, the former Obama administration would still have someone inside the UN bureaucracy to further enhance the Palestinians’ favorable position at the UN at the expense of Israel. But this appointment was not to be.

Shortly after Salam Fayyad’s proposed appointment was announced, Ambassador Haley issued a statement, which read in part: “The United States does not currently recognize a Palestinian state or support the signal this appointment would send within the United Nations, however, we encourage the two sides to come together directly on a solution. Going forward the United States will act, not just talk, in support of our allies.”

Evidently, that was enough to block the appointment. The Palestine Liberation Organization protested, of course. It’s not used to rejection at the United Nations.

Other actions appear to be underway or are soon to come. Late last year, during the waning days of the Obama administration, the UN General Assembly approved funding for compiling a blacklist of private Israeli companies doing business in the “occupied” territories. Samantha Power claimed the Obama administration objected to the blacklist project, but did nothing to stop it from proceeding. Less than a month after President Trump took office and Nikki Haley became the U.S.’s new UN ambassador, it was reported that the anti-Israel United Nations Human Rights Council decided to delay the publication of a report in connection with establishing the database of Israeli companies with business links to settlements in the West Bank until some unspecified time later this year. There is now a good chance the database will not see the light of day.

Blank checks for the UN’s multiple pro-Palestinian programs may finally become a thing of the past. Ambassador Haley singled out the UN Department of Political Affairs – still headed by the former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of State, Jeffrey Feltman – for having “an entire division devoted to Palestinian affairs.” She added, “There is no division devoted to illegal missile launches from North Korea. There is no division devoted to the world’s number one state-sponsor of terror, Iran. The prejudiced approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues does the peace process no favors. And it bears no relationship to the reality of the world around us.”

As governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley had a reputation for being a strong fiscal conservative. The United Nations is on notice that as UN ambassador of the country paying a disproportionate amount of the total UN budget, Ambassador Haley will continue to be a fiscal conservative with American taxpayers’ money. She will aim to sharply reduce the rampant waste in the UN budget, perhaps starting with the often overlapping, over-the-top pro-Palestinian agencies and programs the UN has established over the years.

U.N. leader blames ‘Islamophobia’ for rising global terror

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who took office Jan. 1, wants to end ‘Islamophobia,’ which he says is a main cause of terrorism.

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who took office Jan. 1, wants to end ‘Islamophobia,’ which he says is a main cause of terrorism.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Feb. 17, 2017:

The United Nations — under a new leader who personally oversaw the relocation of millions of Muslim refugees into the U.S., Canada and Europe — is doubling down on its “anti-Islamophobia” campaign against the West.

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, a Portuguese socialist who headed the U.N’s refugee agency before being promoted to secretary general in January, traveled to Saudi Arabia this week where he sat with Saudi royals and cited “Islamophobia” as the reason for increasing terrorism around the world.

“One of the things that fuel terrorism is the expression in some parts of the world of Islamophobic feelings and Islamophobic policies and Islamophobic hate speeches,” Guterres said at a joint news conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir.

Echoing the comments of Hillary Clinton in her 2016 presidential campaign, Guterres said Islamophobia actually helps the Islamic State or ISIS to attract new recruits.

But the way others see it, Guterres just gave a free pass to Islamic extremists to commit acts of terror throughout the world.

It’s a lot like blaming the victim, says Phillip Haney, an Islam specialist who worked for more than a decade at Homeland Security screening immigrants from Africa and the Middle East.

“So Mr. Guterres is telling you that Islamophobia is such a great crime that you will be killed for it and terrorists will rise up because of this and it will be your fault,” Haney told WND.

“Why? Because you are an Islamophobe. It’s your fault that they’re killing you,” he said. “What’s he saying if that’s not what he’s saying?”

Ann Corcoran, a refugee watchdog who has been following Guterres’ career since he left his job as leader of the Socialist International in 2005 to head up the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said the U.N. has a very narrow focus when it comes to religious intolerance.

“He lectured the world about Islamophobia but had nothing to say, no concerns, about the Christophobia exuded by Muslims who have been wiping out entire Christian communities in the Middle East for years,” said Corcoran, who blogs at Refugee Resettlement Watch. “Nor did he say anything to them, the Saudis, about refusing to take any of the millions of Muslim refugees created by the Syrian civil war.”

The venue for such a lecture was curious, Corcoran said. Christians are not allowed to exist in Saudi Arabia. There are no churches and the punishment for being caught with a Bible is death.

But the U.N. began its anti- “Islamophobia” campaign back in the early 2000s. It achieved a breakthrough in 2011 when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a group of 56 Muslim countries seated in the U.N., to adopt U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18. This resolution encourages member states to crack down on speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to violence” based on religion.

The problem, as Haney and others point out, is who gets to define Islamophobia?

“That puts all the responsibility on the Western world to come up with a non-defined standard for free speech,” he said.

Watch the video trailer for new investigative work former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has called the “must read book of 2017”

Of course the U.S. already has its own well-defined standard. It’s called the First Amendment. So there should not have been any need for a United Nations’ standard to muddy the waters, said Haney, co-author of the book “See Something Say Nothing.”

Guilty of ‘blasphemy’

John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism expert who consults with law enforcement and blogs at Understanding the Threat, said Islamophobia is the modern term Muslim leaders use to identify people who are guilty of the Islamic blasphemy laws, also called the Islamic law of slander.

The legal principle of slander is much different under Shariah law than under U.S. law. Under Shariah, comments critical of Allah, his prophet Muhammad or the Quran do not have to be false in order to constitute slander. All they need do is “offend” a Muslim.

“It is a capital crime under Shariah,” Guandolo told WND. “This is the same nonsense being spewed from the establishment Republicans and from the Democrat Party.”

Haney says Guterres is doing a great disservice to Western civilization by holding it to a standard of Shariah law.

“If Guterres really was concerned about the principles of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness why wouldn’t he say something like ‘there is no excuse for terrorism.’ He’s giving them an out,” Haney said. “‘It’s not your fault Islamic world, it’s their fault.’

“If they’re not required to take any responsibility for their terrorism and can simply blame the Islamophobic Western world it’s only going to get worse. It’s like telling the crack addict, it’s not your fault that you’re addicted to crack.”

How the West adopted Islamic blasphemy laws

It was not long after U.N. Resolution 16/18 was adopted in 2011 that the term “Islamophobia” started showing up everywhere in Western countries.

Countries like Germany, the U.K., Sweden and the Netherlands among others in Western Europe went full throttle in the rush to erase “Islamophobia” from their cultural landscapes. Germany has gone so far as to arrest citizens who post anti-Islamic comments on Facebook, with the full cooperation of Facebook.

The Obama administration tried to do the same through end runs around the First Amendment. After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Attorney General Loretta Lynch promised to “aggressively” prosecute any speech that “edged toward violence,” while Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys in Minnesota [Andrew Luger] and Idaho [Wendy Olson] made similarly threatening comments after Muslim terrorists were arrested in those states. Lynch and Olson were forced to walk back their comments after a backlash from First Amendment advocates on the right and the left.

It was also right around this time, in 2011, the Justice Department agreed to purge all references to Islam from FBI training manuals that were deemed offensive to Muslims.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which is the largest NGO in the world with direct access to the U.N., had been pushing for a U.N. anti-blasphemy law since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

“They pushed for years to get that thing through and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state they were successful in finally getting it passed,” Haney said of Resolution 16/18.

Pamela Geller, a free speech advocate, blogger and author of the popular book “Stop the Islamization of America,” said all of the recent U.N. secretaries general have been shills for the global Islamic movement.

“Guterres, like all secretaries general since the fall of the USSR, is a tool of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which has been running a years-long campaign against freedom of speech at the U.N.,” Geller told WND. “It is being used to deflect attention from jihad activity and portray Muslims as victims who don’t deserve counterterror scrutiny.”

Doubling down on Trump

Robert Spencer, author of the Jihad Watch blog and a best-selling author of several books on Islam, told WND that Guterres’ statement shows he plans to continue the U.N. campaign and even increase its intensity now that Donald Trump has been elected president of the most powerful country in the world. Trump’s supporters gave him a mandate to cut off Islamic immigration and take on “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Trump’s election, and the success of the Brexit vote in the U.K., have emboldened the leaders of several European candidates who espouse populist, anti-globalist agendas mirroring Trump’s.

That scares the U.N. and its Islamic allies to death, he said, so look for an intensification of the “Islamophobia” drum beat.

“This statement fits into the U.N.’s ongoing efforts to compel states that protect the freedom of speech to adopt ‘hate speech’ provisions that would effectively involve their adopting Sharia blasphemy provisions,” Spencer said.

There is no other explanation, says former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, as to why the U.N. would go out of its way to influence free countries to crack down on speech deemed critical of Islam when it has said little to nothing about actual acts of brutality – forget about speech – by Muslims against Christians in the Middle East.

“Guterres is doing the bidding of Islamic jihadists and is advancing Islamic conquest by silencing truthful speech about Islam,” Bachmann told WND. “Silencing opposition is the jihadists game plan for cornering their enemies.”

Whether it is U.N. Resolution 16/18, or “false charges of a nonexistent Islamophobia,” Islamic supremacists triumph if no one is allowed to criticize Islam, she said.

“No other religion enjoys such protection from criticism,” Bachmann said. “Ironically, no other religion in current times has advanced more violence, carnage and bloodshed than Islam and yet Islam’s gatekeepers demand their religion not be criticized.

“We need to recognize this is nothing more than a well-designed strategy to achieve Islamic conquest and the U.N. Secretary General is now the jihadist’s advocate.”

Spencer believes Guterres’ comment was directed squarely at the Trump phenomenon.

“The idea is that anyone, especially President Trump, who says there is the slightest problem with Islam (or “radical Islam”) is only aiding Islamic State propaganda that the West is waging war upon Islam,” he said. “This is predicated on the further assumption that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the motivation for jihad terrorism couldn’t possibly come from within it. So the poor dears must only become terrorists when we say bad things about their religion, so if we just stop doing that, all will be well.”

The only problem with this theory, says Spencer, is that the Quran’s exhortations to the conquest and subjugation of unbelievers are not predicated on what those unbelievers say or don’t say.

Guandolo added that “This gives us the cherry on top of the argument for shutting down the United Nations and sending them back to their respective countries. It is an anti-American organization which is littered with spies and haters of liberty and justice.”

Guandolo said Guterres is a perfect example of the unholy alliance between the secular Marxist left and the Islamists.

“It is also a great example of civilization jihad, spoken of by the Muslim Brotherhood, in which the Brotherhood spoke of getting non-Muslims to do their work for them.”

NYT: Trump Administration Preparing Executive Orders To Drastically Reduce U.S. Role in U.N.

Выступление Михаила Горбачева на сессии Генеральной ассамблеи ООНThe Gateway Pundit, January 25, 2017:

Another major hit to the globalist agenda is set to take place as the New York Times is reporting that President Donald Trump will be signing an executive order that greatly reduces U.S. involvement in the United Nations.

President Trump has stated multiple times that there will be changes taking place regarding the United Nations after the anti-Israel resolution was passed with the help of the Obama administration.

From The New York Times:

The Trump administration is preparing executive orders that would clear the way to drastically reduce the United States’ role in the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as begin a process to review and potentially abrogate certain forms of multilateral treaties, officials said.

The first of the two draft orders, titled “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organizations” and obtained by The New York Times, calls for terminating funding for any United Nations agency or other international body that meets any one of several criteria.

Those criteria include organizations that give full membership to the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organization, or support programs that fund abortion or any activity that circumvents sanctions against Iran or North Korea. The draft order also calls for terminating funding for any organization that “is controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism” or is blamed for the persecution of marginalized groups or any other systematic violation of human rights.

The order calls for then enacting “at least a 40 percent overall decrease” in remaining United States funding toward international organizations.

The order establishes a committee to recommend where those funding cuts should be made. It asks the committee to look specifically at United States funding for peacekeeping operations; the International Criminal Court; development aid to countries that “oppose important United States policies”; and the United Nations Population Fund, which oversees maternal and reproductive health programs.

If President Trump signs the order and its provisions are carried out, the cuts could severely curtail the work of United Nations agencies, which rely on billions of dollars in annual United States contributions for missions that include caring for refugees.

The second executive order, “Moratorium on New Multilateral Treaties,” calls for a review of all current and pending treaties with more than one other nation. It asks for recommendations on which negotiations or treaties the United States should leave.

The order says this review applies only to multilateral treaties that are not “directly related to national security, extradition or international trade,” but it is unclear what falls outside these restrictions.

On Tuesday The Gateway Pundit reported that Nikki Haley was easily confirmed by the Senate to be the next ambassador to the United Nations.

Previously Haley had stated she would “not go to New York and abstain when the U.N. seeks to create an international environment that encourages boycotts of Israel.”

“In fact, I pledge to you this,” she continued. “I will never abstain when the United Nations takes any action that comes in direct conflict with the interests and values of the United States.”

On Monday The Gateway Pundit had reported that a bill had been introduced into Congress for the U.S. to completely pull out of the United Nations.

UN Ambassador Invokes Reagan While Failing to Protect Israel with Veto

Members of the United Nations Security council vote Dec. 23, 2016, in favor of condemning Israel for West Bank and east Jerusalem settlements. (Manuel Elias/The United Nations via AP)

Members of the United Nations Security council vote Dec. 23, 2016, in favor of condemning Israel for West Bank and east Jerusalem settlements. (Manuel Elias/The United Nations via AP)

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, December 23, 2016:

WASHINGTON — The United States turned its back on Israel during a United Nations Security Council vote on settlements in what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a “shameful” vote.

“The Obama administration not only failed to protect Israel against the UN’s obsession with Israel, it collaborated with the UN behind Israel’s back,” the statement continued.

The vote on the resolution drafted by Egypt, which demands Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the ‘occupied’ Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem,” was 14 in favor and the U.S. abstention.

Netanyahu immediately began taking countermeasures, canceling foreign aid to Senegal as well as nixing a planned visit to the Security Council member. He also recalled Israeli ambassadors from Senegal and New Zealand for consultations.

During the Friday meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power quoted President Reagan from 1982 saying settlements were “in no way necessary for the security of Israel”; she added that “a routine vote for the U.S. to allow the passage of a resolution with the elements in this one” would be consistent with “familiar, well-articulated components of U.S. policy.”

“It is because this resolution reflects the facts on the ground – and is consistent with U.S. policy across Republican and Democratic administration throughout the history of the State of Israel – that the United States did not veto it,” Power said, even though the administration used its veto power in 2011 to kill a similarly worded resolution.

“The United States has consistently said we would block any resolution that we thought would undermine Israel’s security or seek to impose a resolution to the conflict,” she said. “We would not have let this resolution pass had it not also addressed counterproductive actions by the Palestinians such as terrorism and incitement to violence, which we’ve repeatedly condemned and repeatedly raised with the Palestinian leadership, and which, of course, must be stopped.”

Power added that despite refusing to veto the resolution “Obama and this administration have shown an unprecedented commitment to Israel’s security because that is what we believe in.”

Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told reporters on a conference call today that the administration decided to take the course it did because “one of our grave concerns is that the continued pace of settlement activity, which has accelerated in recent years.”

“We therefore thought that we could not in good conscience veto a resolution that expressed concerns about the very trends that are eroding the foundation for a two-state solution,” Rhodes said. “…For us, the question here has always been about what is the best way to pursue the security that the Israeli people deserve.  And we cannot simply have a two-state solution be a slogan while the trend lines on the ground are such that a two-state solution is becoming less and less viable.”

“…But, in fact, I’d take umbrage at language that suggests that this was our preferred course of action and that we initiated it.  The fact of the matter is, we’d been warning — President Obama and Secretary Kerry publicly and privately for years — that the trend line of settlement construction and settlement activity was just increasing Israel’s international isolation.”

The administration’s action drew scorn from the soon-to-be highest-ranking Democrat in Congress. “Extremely frustrating, disappointing & confounding that the Administration has failed to veto the UN resolution,” tweeted Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Schumer was on the phone as recently as this morning trying to persuade the White House to use America’s veto power.

“Since the days of ‘Zionism is racism,’ the UN has long shown its anti-Israel bias, and the U.S. government — both Democrats and Republicans — have admirably kept the UN out when it comes to negotiations. That tradition should continue,” Schumer said before the vote. “…An abstention is not good enough.”

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who has been at odds with the administration on Iran and Cuba policy, said he was “disappointed but not surprised that the administration chose to go along with this maneuver, walking away from longstanding principles and practices that advance the goal of peace and stability.”

“The United States must use its influence and posture at the United Nations to promote our values and support our allies,” Menendez said. “It has long been a bipartisan sensible policy of the United States to support direct bilateral negotiations between the parties to find an agreement. We have long stood beside Israel in the face of these kind of politicized resolutions whose only goal is to undermine confidence in a negotiated peace process.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) noted that “Israel can’t get a fair shake at the UN, and that is why Israel has relied on the United States to protect it from the anti-Israel tendencies of some UN Security Council members.”

“This abstention represents a clear departure from convention, and I consider this a break in the Obama administration’s word that they would veto biased or one-sided anti-Israel resolutions,” Engel said.

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations said this morning that the Jewish State knew the resolution condemning settlement construction was coming because the Palestinians “want to take advantage of the transition period” in the United States.

“Instead of negotiating with us, it’s easier for them to come to New York, to come to the Security Council,” Ambassador Danny Danon told MSNBC a day after an expected vote on the resolution was tabled.

Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement calling himself “a lifelong friend of Israel” and said the U.S. “acted with one primary objective in mind: to preserve the possibility of the two state solution, which every U.S. administration for decades has agreed is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

“That future is now in jeopardy, with terrorism, violence and incitement continuing and unprecedented steps to expand settlements being advanced by avowed opponents of the two state solution,” Kerry said. “That is why we cannot in good conscience stand in the way of a resolution at the United Nations that makes clear that both sides must act now to preserve the possibility of peace.”

StandWithUs CEO Roz Rothstein said that “while both sides in this conflict are subject to criticism, placing most of the blame on Israel while shielding Palestinian leaders from accountability is not a path to peace or justice for either side.”

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee called it “particularly regrettable, in his last month in office, that the president has taken an action at odds with the bipartisan consensus in Congress and America’s long history of standing with Israel at the United Nations.”

“Unfortunately, the UNSC today irresponsibly adopted a ruinous resolution that can only make the goal of peace even more elusive,” the AIPAC statement added.

***

***

Also see: