Category Archives: Hamas Fatah Gaza West Bank

John Kerry to PA: ‘This Meeting is Classified’

Posted on by

Ah well not so much. The planning for the UN resolution against Israel was several weeks in the making and had a lot of Washington DC players and coordination.

There is much talk about defunding the United Nations, yet a good start would be to defund UNRWA.(United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees) With a total of $644,701,999 in contributions, the US, EU, UK, Sweden, Norway, Germany, The Netherlands and Japan pay 71% of the annual UNRWA budget. The personal wealth of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is estimated at $100 million. Read more here.

 

Understanding the UNRWA Funding Structure

UNRWA is mandated by the General Assembly under resolution 302(IV) to respond to the needs of more than 5 million refugees (compared to 750,000 in 1950) in its five fields of operation until a just and durable solution is found to the refugee issue. Based on this mandate, UNRWA delivers essential services in the areas of education, health, protection, relief and social services, microfinance and camp improvement with the support of more than 28,000 national Palestinian staff members.

The UNRWA Programme Budget (General Fund), approved by the General Assembly for the 2016-2017 biennium, comprises recurrent staff and non-staff costs.

In budgeting, UNRWA is guided by the strategic objectives and priorities outlined in its Medium Term Strategy 2016-21 (MTS). This strategic vision is further refined by strategic plans for each UNRWA field of operation, based on programme cycle management.

The MTS identifies five strategic outcomes:

  • Refugees’ rights under international law are protected and promoted
  • Refugees’ health is protected and the disease burden is reduced
  • School-aged children complete quality, equitable and inclusive basic education
  • Refugee capabilities are strengthened for increased livelihoods opportunities
  • Refugees are able to meet their basic human needs of food, shelter and environmental health

To link financial resources directly to the achievement of results consistent with the Agency’s strategy, the budget includes a breakdown based on these goals and strategic objectives.

***

Memri: Egyptian Daily Close To Egyptian Intelligence Reveals Minutes Of Secret Palestinian Authority Meeting With John Kerry, Susan Rice; U.S.-Palestinian Coordination On UNSC 2334; Rice Says Trump Administration’s Policy Will Be ‘Dangerous’

In mid-December 2016, a Palestinian Authority (PA) delegation met in Washington with officials from the outgoing Obama administration for secret talks. On December 27, the Egyptian daily Al-Youm Al-Sabi’, which is close to Egyptian intelligence services, published an exposé of the minutes of the secret talks. According to the report, by Ahmed Gomaa, the Palestinian delegation included PLO Executive Committee secretary and negotiating team leader Saeb Erekat; Palestinian general intelligence chief Majid Faraj; Husam Zomlot, strategic affairs advisor to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud ‘Abbas; Palestinian Foreign Ministry official Dr. Majed Bamya; Palestinian negotiations department official Azem Bishara; Palestinian intelligence international relations department chief Nasser ‘Adwa; and head of the PLO delegation to Washington Ma’an Erekat.

The report gave the details of the Palestinian delegation’s schedule during the visit, noting that “the Palestinian side began its meetings on December 12, when Saeb Erekat and Majid Faraj met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. The next day, the two met with National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The entire delegation met with an American team that included four representatives of the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, for a six-hour political-strategic meeting. Majid Faraj concluded his visit with a lengthy meeting with the CIA chief.”

According to the report, the minutes of the “top secret” meeting of Kerry, Rice, Erekat, and Faraj reveals U.S.-Palestinian coordination leading up to the UN Security Council vote on Resolution 2334 regarding Israel’s settlements, which was adopted December 23. It states that the sides “agreed to cooperate in drafting a resolution on the settlements” and that the U.S. representative in the Security Council was “empowered” to coordinate with the Palestinian UN representative on the resolution.

The meeting also, according to the report, was aimed at coordinating Kerry’s attendance at the upcoming international Paris Conference set for January 15, 2017, in order to promote a further international move regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kerry, it said, offered to propose his ideas for a permanent arrangement “provided that they are supported by the Palestinian side.”

At the meeting, Rice pointed out the “danger” of the incoming Trump administration’s policies, the report stated, adding that both she and Kerry had advised President ‘Abbas to make no preliminary moves that might provoke the new administration. Rice even offered to help arrange a meeting between the Palestinian delegation and a representative from the Trump team, by enlisting the help of World Jewish Congress president Ronald Lauder.

Also at the meeting, Erekat warned that if the U.S. Embassy was moved to Jerusalem, the Palestinians would call to expel U.S. Embassies from Arab and Muslim capitals, the report said.

The report added that Kerry and Rice had fulsomely praised ‘Abbas’s policies and how he handled matters, and harshly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that he “aims to destroy the two-state solution.”

It should be mentioned that both Kerry and Erekat have denied that there was any U.S.-Palestinian coordination in drafting the Security Council resolution.[1]

Following are excerpts from the Al-Youm Al-Sabi’ report:[2]

The report in Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’

U.S. Representative To The Security Council Coordinated With Palestinian UN Representative On The Issue Of The Resolution Condemning The Settlements

According to the Al-Youm Al-Sabi’ report, “the minutes of the meeting – which was attended by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and on the Palestinian side by PLO Executive Committee Secretary and negotiations team leader Saeb Erekat, and head of Palestinian general intelligence Maj,-Gen. Majid Faraj – reveals that the sides agreed to collaborate regarding a resolution on the settlements.” According to the report, “during the meeting, the American side focused on coordination of positions between Washington and Ramallah regarding the resolution on the settlements, which was brought to a vote in the Security Council and adopted several days ago…”

The report stated that “the minutes of the meeting reveal American-Palestinian coordination regarding the resolution on the settlements” and that Kerry and Rice stressed that “they were willing to cooperate with a balanced resolution, and that Washington’s UN mission was authorized to discuss this matter with the Palestinian representative to the UN, Ambassador Riyad Mansour.” It continued: “The U.S.’s representative to the Security Council coordinated with the Palestinian ambassador on the issue of the resolution condemning the settlements.”

Coordinating Kerry’s Attendance At International Conference In France

The delegation also attempted to coordinate Kerry’s attendance at the Paris Conference, which will take place January 15, 2017, to promote a further international move for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to the report. “As for the French initiative, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that he could not attend [the conference if it were to be held] December 21-22, but stressed that he could [attend it if it were to be held] after January 9. The Palestinian delegation stressed that ‘Abbas had contacted the French side, and that it had expressed its willingness to postpone the international conference [in Paris] so that the American secretary of state could attend.”

Possibility Of Kerry Presenting His Ideas For Permanent Solution

According to the report, “Kerry raised the possibility of presenting ideas for a permanent solution, provided that they are supported by the Palestinian side… and this refers to principles that have already been raised as part of the Framework Agreement.[3] He also proposed that the Palestinian delegation travel to Saudi Arabia to discuss these points, but according to the minutes, he did not contact the Saudis on this matter. [Additionally,] according to the minutes of the meeting, National Security Advisor Susan Rice rejected, and ridiculed, the offer to propose ideas, arguing that the [incoming] administration of Republican President Donald Trump will completely oppose them.”

Rice “Stressed The Danger Posed By The Trump Administration”

Rice, the report stated, “stressed the danger posed by the Trump administration, which could take a position different from that of all American administrations since 1967 on the issue of Palestine and Israel. She emphasized that she took seriously statements about moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and the Trump administration’s view of the settlements.”

Kerry and Rice “advised Palestinian President Mahmoud ‘Abbas to not take any preliminary steps that could provoke the Trump administration, such as dismantling the PA, turning to the International Criminal Court, or ending security coordination with Israel,” said the report, adding: “They [also] stressed the need to avoid military action or martyrdom [attacks], as these would greatly jeopardize the Palestinian position.

“They praised the substantial efforts of the Palestinian security apparatuses, specifically Palestinian [general] intelligence, led by Majid Faraj, as part of what they called ‘the struggle against terrorism.’ [The two] maintained that Palestinian-American collaboration in this area is among the closest of all the coordination between American apparatuses and security forces in the region.”

Rice Offered To Organize Meeting Between Ronald Lauder And Palestinian Delegation

“According to the minutes of the meeting, Susan Rice asked whether the Palestinian delegation could meet with a representative from Donald Trump’s team. She clarified that she could request intervention and could organize this by means of World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder. Saeb Erekat responded that he had already asked but that Lauder could not. He added: ‘We were told that they were still organizing the new administration, and that once they were done, they would officially meet with the Palestinian side.'”

Erekat: If U.S. Embassy Is Moved To Jerusalem, We Will Call To Expel U.S. Embassies From Arab And Muslim Countries

“When Susan Rice asked what the Palestinian response would be if the U.S. Embassy was moved to Jerusalem, or if a new settlement bloc was annexed, Erekat responded: ‘We will directly and immediately join 16 international organizations, withdraw the PLO’s recognition of Israel, and cut back our security, political, and economic ties with the Israeli occupation regime, and we will hold it fully responsible for the PA’s collapse. Furthermore, we will [call] on the Arab and Islamic peoples to expel U.S. Embassies from their capitals.’ Rice answered Erekat by saying: ‘It seems that future matters could be very complicated, and we are all apprehensive about sitting down with Erekat because of his absolute knowledge of these matters, and because of his memory and his sincerity.’ She expressed the American side’s respect and friendship for Erekat, and apologized for yelling at him in March 2014.”

“The Palestinian Delegation Officially Demanded That The Law… Designating The PLO A Terrorist Organization Be Rescinded”

According to the report, “the Palestinian side officially demanded that the 1987 U.S. law designating the PLO a terrorist organization be rescinded.[4] Furthermore, both sides agreed to establish a bilateral commission to examine visa requests from Palestinians and entry and movement visas for Palestinian leadership in the U.S.”

Part of the minutes published in the report

Kerry, Rice Congratulate ‘Abbas “For His Stunning Success At Fatah’s Seventh General Conference”

“The Palestinian delegation thanked Kerry and Rice, and expressed Palestinian President Mahmoud ‘Abbas’s esteem for the views of U.S. President Barack Obama, Advisor Rice, and Secretary Kerry, and particularly for Kerry’s speech at the Saban Forum in early December,” the report stated, and added that the two U.S. officials had congratulated ‘Abbas “for his stunning success at Fatah’s Seventh General Conference and for his long and courageous speech (like those given by the late Cuban ruler Fidel Castro), during which he reiterated his positions and founding principles regarding his adherence to the peace process and his opposition to violence and terrorism in all forms.”

Also according to the report, Erekat and Faraj asked Kerry and Rice “to stress in the reports of the transition to the new administration that Palestinian President Mahmoud ‘Abbas, the PLO, and the PA are partners in the peace process, and that the Palestinian president and security apparatuses are strategic partners in the struggle against terrorism on the regional and international [levels].

“[They asked] that it be emphasized that there would be bilateral Palestinian-American committees in all areas (healthcare, education, agriculture, tourism, sports, trade, security, women, youth, and more) and that the new administration would oversee them together with Palestinian Prime Minister Dr. Rami Hamdallah.” Additionally, the possibility of “establishing a joint database together with the Palestinian ambassador to Washington and a representative from Palestinian general intelligence” was raised.

Kerry and Rice said, according to the report, that “all the above matters will head the transitional report now being prepared by the team of the outgoing president, Barack Obama, for the new American administration.” They also “praised ‘Abbas’s courage, positions, leadership, and adherence to the culture of peace and to peace as a strategic option, in addition to his opposition to violence and terrorism, to the ongoing security coordination, and to his being considered a uniquely strategic and courageous leader in the Middle East. The success of [Fatah’s] Seventh General Conference. they [said], had effectively ended attempts by Muhammad Dahlan and others to weaken President ‘Abbas, who must now act to tighten his relationship with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt.”[5]

It continued: “Rice asked the Palestinian delegation to convey U.S. President Barack Obama’s gratitude to Palestinian President Mahmoud ‘Abbas for honoring all his commitments to him, and added: ‘Abbas was open and honest regarding all his commitments, especially regarding [Palestine] refraining from joining the 16 international organizations [as a member state].'”

Kerry and Rice also said that it was necessary “to continue American-Palestinian, Israeli-Palestinian, and American-Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation in all fields.” In this context, said the report, Faraj stressed that “the cooperation between Palestinian security apparatuses [and Israel] is carried out according to the clear and direct order of Palestinian President Mahmoud ‘Abbas.”

Kerry And Rice: Netanyahu “Aims To Destroy The Two-State Solution”

Kerry and Rice stressed that “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aims to destroy the two-state solution, and Dr. Saeb Erekat foresaw Netanyahu’s plan to create one state with two systems four years ago. The two said that Erekat’s prediction was highly accurate, and that all Netanyahu has to offer is maintaining the status quo, in addition to guarantees to improve [Palestinian] living conditions,” the report stated.

“John Kerry And Susan Rice Asked That The Meetings Be Classified ‘Top Secret'”

Finally, the report stated: “John Kerry and Susan Rice asked that the meetings be classified ‘Top Secret’ and that what went on in them not be leaked, in light of the sensitivity of the transition between the two U.S. administrations.”

“The Palestinian delegation,” it said, “asked Kerry and Rice to reexamine the financial aid to the PA and not to reduce it, as they did when they cut it from $150 million in 2011 to $100 million in 2012, with the current aid proposal being only $39 million. According to the meeting’s minutes, the Palestinian side revealed that [U.S.]  financial aid to the PA was $400-$500 million between 2008 and 2013, and was cut to $370 million in 2014 and 2015, and then cut again to $290 million in 2016.[6]

“The Palestinian side praised the American administration’s aid to UNRWA, which averaged $277 million per year between 2009 and 2016, and asked for it to be increased in order to cover UNRWA’s $101 million deficit in 2016.”

 

[1] Wafa.ps, December 28, 2016.

[2] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), December 27, 2016.

[3] The Framework Agreement was proposed by Kerry in February 2014. According to Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, this agreement included: Gradual Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank; Israel retaining some West Bank settlements in return for Israeli land given over to Palestinian control; security arrangements in the Jordan Valley for Israel’s defense; Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state within the 1948 borders; a right of return to the 1967, rather than the 1948, borders; and a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

[4] 22 USC Ch. 61 designates the PLO as a terrorist organization, banning it from operating in the U.S. See Uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter61&edition=prelim

[5] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1283, Fatah’s Seventh General Conference Will Convene Under The Shadow Of The ‘Abbas-Dahlan Struggle, November 28, 2016; Inquiry & Analysis No. 1282, The ‘Abbas-Dahlan Power Struggle Over The Palestinian Presidential Succession, November 28, 2016; Special Dispatch No. 6684, Reports In Arab Press: ‘Abbas Resisted Arab League Pressure To Appoint Successor – Despite Threats Of Sanctions Against Him, November 18, 2016; Inquiry & Analysis No. 1270, Tension Between Mahmoud ‘Abbas, Arab Quartet Over Initiative For Internal Reconciliation In Fatah, September 27, 2016; and Inquiry & Analysis No. 1290, Fatah’s Seventh General Conference Bolsters ‘Abbas’s Standing; Contradictory Messages In ‘Abbas Statements On Terror, Negotiations With Israel, December 21, 2016.

[6] All conflicting numbers mentioned above appear as is in the report.

ISIS in Latin America, Terror Funding Operations

Posted on by

Islamists population report, including those in Cuba is found here. Latin America has a long history of nefarious connections starting with those in support of Nazis and harboring many that fled to the region after the fall of the Third Reich. There is Paraguay, then Argentina and Chile, even Brazil.

Now we have the modern day threat of militant Islam as a neighbor.

 Wisc.edu

 Jamaica

 Buenos Aires

 El Paso

Spanish Military Report: Islamic Terrorists Operate, Raise Cash in Latin America to Attack U.S.

JW: Latin America is a hotbed of Islamic terrorism where groups like ISIS and Hezbollah operate freely and raise large sums of money to finance terrorist activities in other countries, mainly the United States, according to a new report released by Spain’s Defense Ministry. “Latin America represents an important region for Islamic radicalism because conditions enable the free, almost undetectable, movement of their members throughout the region,” the defense document states.

Governments in the region consider Islamic terrorism to be a foreign problem, the report says, and intelligence agencies are ill equipped to handle the threat they represent. “The ignorance involving the threat of jihadist terrorism in Latin America has been such that some governments have refused to cooperate with U.S. authorities and other intelligence services,” the disturbing assessment reveals. The report was released this month by the division of Spain’s Defense agency known as Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos (IEEE), Spanish Institute of Strategic Studies. The document, authored by a counterterrorism expert, is titled “El radicalismo islámico en América Latina. De Hezbolá al Daesh (Estado Islámico),” Islamic Radicalism in Latin America, from Hezbollah to ISIS.

The Lebanese group Hezbollah is identified as having the largest fundraising operations in the region, though others, such as ISIS, are also prominent. The terrorist organizations have teamed up with established drug trafficking conglomerates to raise and launder large quantities of cash. The report identifies a group called El clan Barakat in Paraguay and Joumaa in Colombia as two examples of drug trafficking enterprises that have long worked with Islamic jihadists to launder money. Spain’s military experts refer to the relationships as a “marriage of convenience” between Latin American organized crime and Muslim terrorists with different objectives and interests. “Each takes advantage of the benefits that the relationship provides,” the report states.

ISIS is expanding quickly in Latin America, the report warns, revealing that around 100 individuals from the region’s large Muslim community have traveled to Syria and Iraq to join terrorist groups recently. Argentina and Brazil have the largest Muslim populations in Latin America with more than 1 million each, the report says. Venezuela, Mexico, Peru and Chile also have large and rapidly growing Muslim populations. Trinidad and Tobago, Caribbean islands on the northern edge of Latin America, are identified as “especially worrisome” because local authorities reported that 70 of their citizens traveled to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS. Additionally, nine of the islands’ citizens were detained in Turkey attempting to cross the border into Syria. The report cites a 2012 article in a military publication from Trinidad that compares the growth of radical Islam in the country to a group of violent Muslims that tried to overthrow the government in 1990.

The strong connection between Islamic terrorists and Latin America has been developing for years and Judicial Watch has reported it extensively, especially when it comes to Mexico. With a dangerously porous southern border, the collaboration between Muslim terrorists and Mexican drug cartels has created a critical threat to the United States. Last year Judicial Watch reported that ISIS is operating a camp just a few miles from El Paso, Texas, in an area known as “Anapra” situated just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Judicial Watch also broke a story about Mexican drug cartels smuggling foreigners from countries with terrorist links into a small Texas rural town near El Paso. The foreigners are classified as Special Interest Aliens (SIA) by the U.S. government and they are being transported to stash areas in Acala, a rural crossroads located around 54 miles from El Paso on a state road—Highway 20.

Earlier this year Judicial Watch uncovered State Department records confirming that “Arab extremists” are entering the U.S. through Mexico with the assistance of smuggling network “cells.” Among them is a top Al Qaeda operative wanted by the FBI. The government documents also reveal that some Mexican smuggling networks actually specialize in providing logistical support for Arab individuals attempting to enter the United States. The top Al Qaeda leader in Mexico was identified in the State Department records, via a September 2004 cable from the American consulate in Ciudad Juárez, as Adnan G. El Shurkrjumah. In December, 2014 Shukrijumah was killed by the Pakistan Army in an intelligence-borne operation in South Waziristan. But before he died Shukrijumah helped plan several U.S. attacks, including plots to bomb Oprah Winfrey’s studio and detonate nuclear devices in multiple American cities. For years Shukrijumah appeared on the FBI’s most wanted list and, despite being sought by the agency, he crossed back and forth into the U.S. from Mexico to meet fellow militant Islamists in Texas. Back in 2014 Judicial Watch reported that, as one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, Shukrijumah piloted an aircraft into the Cielo Dorado airfield in Anthony, New Mexico.

Obama/Kerry: Diplomatic Terrorism on Israel

Posted on by

Israel was on the edge at least last October, they knew that Obama and Kerry had something in the pipeline against Israel. So it comes down to who wins the debate over Jerusalem? Should there even be a debate and Israel is fighting back on the never-ending use of the words ‘occupy’ and ‘settlement’s and should.

 CBS

Bloomberg: When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was re-elected last year, the White House threatened to reconsider long-standing U.S. policy to veto U.N. Security Council resolutions on Israel’s presence in the West Bank. At issue was a last-minute interview in which Netanyahu said there would be no Palestinian state as long as he was prime minister. He took back that statement after the election. Nonetheless, the White House directed policymakers to draw up a set of options for how Obama could “preserve the two-state solution,” according to one U.S. official privy to the process.

So far, nothing has come of Obama’s threat. Indeed last month, Obama signed an agreement with Israel to extend the U.S. subsidy of its military for another ten years. In foreign policy, Obama is focused on the collapse of U.S. policy in Syria, which has become an even greater humanitarian emergency in the last month with the Russian and Iranian-led siege of Aleppo. Politically, the White House is working to elect Hillary Clinton as Obama’s successor.

Yet with a little more than three months left of his presidency, Israeli officials privately say they worry Obama intends to try to level the playing field between the Palestinians and Israelis before he leaves office. The threat of a last-minute speech, executive order, or U.N. action has stirred some of Israel’s friends in Washington. Last month, for example, 88 senators signed a letter to Obama urging him to restate “long-standing U.S. policy” to veto one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

The Obama administration has not made such a statement. This week, however, White House spokesman Joshua Earnest “strongly condemned” Israel’s approval of 98 new housing units in the West Bank settlement of Shilo. A CBS correspondent noted that this phrasing is “usually reserved” for terrorist attacks.  More here.

**** So Israel put some assets into the system and worked to determine who, what and when such actions would happen. Since the UN vote, Israel says it has iron clad evidence of the United States complicity in the text for the vote.

****

Haaretz: he Egyptians distributed a Security Council resolution on the settlements last week, and demanded a vote within 24 hours, only to withdraw it after pressure from the prime minister’s bureau in Jerusalem and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.

Israel’s UN ambassador, Ron Dermer, said Monday that Israel had evidence that the Obama administration was behind the wording of the resolution and had cooperated with the Palestinians behind Israel’s back. The document published on the Egyptian new site might be the evidence Israel has. On December 22, the day the original Security Council vote was to have taken place, the Israeli news site Walla published a report almost identical to the one on the Egyptian news site. Walla quoted a senior Israeli official as stating that in a meeting between Kerry and a Palestinian delegation to Washington headed by Palestinian Liberation Organization Secretary General Saeb Erekat, agreement was reached on the matter of a resolution against the settlements, and that Kerry said the United States would not veto it. More here.

****

What else was Israel watching?

On December 23, 2016, the UN General Assembly approved spending $138,700 to create a “database” of all companies that conduct business – directly or indirectly – relating to Israeli “settlements” in Arab-claimed territories. The idea of a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) blacklist came from a March 2016 resolution of the UN Human Rights Council. According to UN documentation, the $138,700 will be used “to pay for one staff member to create the database over a period of 8 months and present a report” to the Human Rights Council in March 2017. In other words, the December authorization backdated approval of an expenditure for an operation already underway.

When the General Assembly’s Budget Committee met to approve the UN budget, Israel proposed to delete approval specifically for funding the blacklist.The Committee rejected the Israeli amendment 6 in favor (Australia, Canada, Guatemala Israel, Palau and the United States), 151 against, with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Central African Republic, Georgia, Honduras and Ghana).

After Israel lost the vote on funding the BDS item, it declared it was “disassociating” from the General Assembly’s subsequent approval of the UN budget as a whole. Despite the U.S. voting against funding the blacklist initially, it voted in favor of the UN budget, and made no mention of any problem funding BDS.

Date
December 23, 2016
Title
Fifth Committee Vote on Israeli Proposed Oral Amendment to Resolution on Programme Budget Appropriations for 2016-2017 Biennium, UN Meeting Coverage
Original Source
https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gaab4224.doc.htm
Attachment
Click here to view this document in MS Word/PDF format
Note
Israel’s oral amendment was rejected by a vote of 6 in favor (Australia, Canada, Guatemala Israel, Palau and the United States), 151 against, with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Central African Republic, Georgia, Honduras and Ghana)

****

So, here is Kerry on 12/28/2016 speaking while Obama is on vacation in Hawaii:

AP: Secretary of State John Kerry says that if Israel rejects a two-state solution for peace with the Palestinian people, “it can be Jewish or it can be democratic.”

Kerry was responding to withering Israeli criticism of the United States’ abstention from a vote condemning Israeli settlement construction. He reiterated the American position that a two-state solution giving both Israelis and Palestinians a home state is the best roadmap to peace. He also made it clear that despite recent differences in policy, the United States continues to be Israel’s closest ally.

Israel has been furious at the United States since the UN vote late last week. But Kerry said in a farewell speech at the State Department on Wednesday that the vote was “in keeping with” American values for democracy.

****

The full text of his speech is here, but while he ways that Israel has to be either Jewish or a democracy and not both, Kerry also suggests that Israel pay restitution to the Palestinians. In 2009, the United States gave Gaza $900 million, which is under the control of Abu Mazen.

 

More here.

Obama’s Position is Jews Cannot Pray at Wailing Wall

Posted on by

How about the first item of order in this decades long debate is eliminating 2 words: ‘occupation’ and ‘settlement’. Beyond that, read on.

Threats to Israel Posed by Resolution 2334

  1. In terms of Israel, the approach underlying Resolution 2334, whereby “the Western Wall is tantamount to the Yitzhar settlement,” or “the Ramot neighborhood in Jerusalem is equivalent to the settlement of Elon Moreh,” eliminates any chances of negotiations toward a two-state arrangement.
  2. The resolution rewards Palestinian obduracy, the Palestinian strategy of avoiding negotiations with Israel, and the expectation that the international arena will dictate the parameters for the arrangement. Therefore, the resolution will encourage the Palestinians to adhere to their refusal to return to the negotiating table and exhibit the flexibility required in any genuine negotiation.
  3. The resolution increased the risk of Israelis at certain political and military echelons being brought to trial before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. It will be difficult to conduct peace negotiations in an atmosphere of “a legal witch hunt” of Israeli leaders and commanders.
  4. The delegitimization movement and the boycott of Israel will become stronger and receive moral and political encouragement, which can be translated into legal, political, public, and economic measures.
  5. The resolution places the Israeli issue as a bone of contention between American Democrats and Republicans and threatens America’s longstanding bipartisan support of Israel.
  6. The resolution damages Israeli deterrence, since a significant portion thereof is based on the strategic alliance with the United States and its support of Israel.
  7. The report on issues referred to in the resolution, which the UN Secretary-General is requested to release every three months, will guarantee constant preoccupation with these topics at the expense of more important issues and will nourish an ongoing anti-Israeli campaign.

At the same time, Resolution 2334 was not passed pursuant to Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, and, therefore does not allow the UN to impose sanctions and other practical measures against Israel without a further resolution. One can assess that the new administration in the United States, which is more sympathetic toward Israel than the Obama administration, will veto any attempt to pass resolutions pursuant to Chapter 7.

****

CR: Here we go again with the U.N. peddling the biggest geo-political hoax of all time — that Israel’s control over Judea and Samaria is illegal, that it belongs to a distinct Arab people called “Palestinians,” and that the source of Islamist mayhem across the globe is a smattering of Jewish homes being built in their ancestral land. Land, which by the way, is virtually invisible on a map compared to the mass of land controlled by Islam.

While Islamic jihadists are blowing up every corner of the world, what is “the international community” focused on? Yup, those pesky little Jewish homes built in their ancestral home on a parcel of land not even visible on the map. The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution before the Christmas weekend that “reaffirms 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.”

Obama instructed the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to abstain from vetoing that resolution, an unprecedented step given our history of vetoing anti-Israel resolutions. Worse, it appears that Obama was likely the ringleader behind the resolution because, according to Israeli sources, Vice President Joe Biden convinced Ukraine to support the resolution, a move that shocked Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Actually, Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria is enshrined into international law

The notion that there is any moral equivalence between Jews building homes in their homeland that they won back in a defensive war (after it was illegally occupied by Jordan) and brutal terrorists illegally occupying land that was never given to them, is reprehensible. But first, a brief history lesson …

The only binding resolution of international law, a resolution which has never been countermanded to this very day, is the July 1922 Mandate for Palestine. Adopted by the League of Nations, that resolution recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” It called for the creation of a Jewish national homeland anywhere west of the Jordan River.

Once the League of Nations was disbanded and the United Nations formed in its stead, the international community agreed to maintain all agreements and not “alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.” [Article 80, UN Charter, emphasis added] This provision wasn’t inserted by accident; it was known as “the Jewish People’s clause” at the time it was adopted in 1945 in order to enshrine the 1922 Mandate into international law.

The Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations was the last legally binding document delineating regional borders. In Article 5 of the Mandate it explicitly states “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.”

The Palestine Mandate (and Iraq) was given to Britain to serve as a temporary trustee based on the resolution between the four principle Allied Powers in April 1920 at the San Remo Conference in Italy, which was signed by 51 nations. It was at that conference where the world powers adopted the 1917 Balfour Declaration (which originally allocated the eastern part of the Mandate for a Jewish state as well) creating a Jewish state. This same conference that created the Jewish state west of the Jordan River also created Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq as Arab states.

The legality of the 1922 Mandate was adopted that same year by the U.S. Congress in H.J. Res. 360 and signed by President Warren Harding. The newly created Arab country of Jordan attacked Israel in 1948 seeking to annihilate its inhabitants and illegally occupied Judea and Samaria until 1967. That year, Israel won back the territory originally allocated for a Jewish State as part of the 1922 League of Nations agreement.

There is no such thing as “’pre-67 borders.” They were merely 1949 armistice lines between Israel and neighboring countries after they launched an illegal war of extermination. It has nothing to do with the notion of a unique Arab “Palestinian” entity west of the Jordan River. There was never any internationally recognized legal sovereign occupying Judea and Samaria from the time the British Empire fell until 1967. Jordan’s occupation of the area west of the Jordan River was never recognized. To the extent there is an Arab Palestinian state it is the modern state of Jordan, which already sucked up 77% of the original Mandate of Palestine allocated for a Jewish State under the first plan of the Balfour Declaration.

In many respects, this is the biggest global fake news story of our time.

Although the U.N. has bloviated time and again about Israel “withdrawing” from the region, those are merely recommendations and political arguments. They are not legal arguments because once that land was allocated for the Jewish state by the binding charter of the U.N., it cannot be rescinded without Israel’s consent any more than Florida can be taken away from the U.S. and be returned to Spain without our consent.

Until fairly recently, even the Left was forced to admit this legal and historical reality. During an interview with Matt Lauer on October 1, 1997, then-Secretary of State Madelaine Albright reluctantly admitted that although she was unhappy about recent construction in Judea, it was indeed legal:

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I wasn’t happy. We had had a conversation, and I felt
that going forward with those kinds of buildings was not helpful. It is not
in any way not part of what they can do, but they shouldn’t do it.MR. LAUER: It’s legal.SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: It’s legal. But I think that, in this kind of an
atmosphere, it’s very important not to take actions that are viewed by the
other side as creating more difficulties.

Unfortunately, over the past generation the geo-political elites and the media has repeated the lie about an Arab “Palestinian state” and “illegal Israeli settlements” so many times that it has become true in the minds of so many people. It’s a classic strategy domestic liberals employ when they conflate political arguments with legal arguments. In many respects, this is the biggest global fake news story of our time.

The reality is that Arab squatters living in that region have no legal right to a state in that land, much less a right to murder Jews who build homes in the rightful territory of their state duly adopted by international law. But even those who subscribed to this nonsense over the past few decades must wake up and smell the Jihad. The fact that Jihad has spread to every corner of the world, including in the West itself, should demonstrate incontrovertibly that the source of the problem is not a few homes built in the Samarian hills by Jews. The problem is global Islamic supremacism.

It was heartening to see Donald Trump release a statement opposing the U.N. resolution and threaten their funding. But he needs to take it a step further and end the entire policy of promoting a second Palestinian State (the first being Jordan) altogether. Pursuit of an Arab “Palestinian” state has been one of the most wrongheaded failed policies in modern history and it’s time for the Republican Party to formally abandon it forever.

 

Is General Mattis on a Collision Course with Keith Ellison?

Posted on by

For Gen. Mattis as SecDef, Mission is Iran

Keith Ellison’s Life as NIAC Cheerleader

The would-be head of the DNC has a long, cozy history with the Tehran lobby

By Armin Rosen

July of 2009 was not the most obvious time to argue against sanctioning Iran. In June, the regime violently suppressed a widespread protest movement that emerged in response to the alleged rigging of the country’s presidential election. Mir Hossein Moussavi, who the regime had declared the election’s loser, was under house arrest, securing the belligerent Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term in office. Iran was also operating 3,800 uranium enrichment centrifuges and stonewalling international nuclear monitors, in violation of international law. As a result, even President Obama and members of his administration who favored dialogue were suggesting the need for more intensive U.S. sanctions against a country that leaders of both parties agreed posed a potential nuclear threat. 

But for Keith Ellison, then a freshman congressman from Minnesota, mid-2006 was an ideal time for the U.S. to try something radically different in its relations with Tehran. “I haven’t been persuaded that the best thing for us to do is to rush to crippling sanctions,” said Ellison during a July 22, 2009 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing covering recent developments in Iran. Although Ellison clarified he was “not in principle against sanctions,” he argued that Washington could not shape Iranian behavior without broader international cooperation: “We have sanctioned ourselves out of sanctions unilaterally,” Ellison said, years before many of the most restrictive U.S. measures had even been introduced.

Ellison also submitted an op/ed piece by Trita Parsi, the founder and president of what was then a little-known organization called the National Iranian American Council, and a strong proponent of closer U.S. ties with Iran, into the committee’s hearing record. (In a March 2011 speech at a NIAC event, Ellison thanks Trita Parsi for being “an indispensable partner” in helping to develop a 2009 bill that would have sanctioned individual human abusers in Iran while lifting U.S. restrictions on NGO work in the country, and refers to the NIAC founder as a “friend.”)

Ellison is now vying to be head of the Democratic National Committee, and his statements at the 2009 hearing are part of a larger pattern of taking views on Iran that put him in the minority of the party he hopes to lead. If Ellison does become DNC head, the Democrats will have elevated an outspoken proponent of a transformed U.S. policy towards Tehran who has taken a notably independent course, even in relation to other Democrats—including Obama, whose early outreach efforts were scuttled after the existence of Iran’s secret Fordow uranium enrichment facility was exposed in September of 2009. 

Ellison’s wariness of increased U.S. sanctions continued well beyond that point. During a March 2011 address at a National Iranian American Council event, Ellison voiced his support for the U.S. opening a diplomatic interest section or embassy in Tehran, something that the notably pro-engagement Obama has been careful not to publicly endorse. He also appeared to argue against sanctioning non-Iranian companies for doing business in Iran: “We have sanctioned Iran so much we have almost no levers to play on this,” said Ellison. “Now we’re at the point of sanctioning our economic partners who will then impose sanctions on them. Very sad, very not exactly a direct relationship.” 

In the same speech, Ellison cited the tear gas attacks against anti-regime Egyptian protesters as an example of when U.S. sanctions would be morally and strategically prudent. “You and I as Americans do not want any Egyptian who is fighting for civil or human rights to have to pick up a tear gas canister that says ‘made in America,’ said Ellison. “If that government’s going to oppress people they can’t do it with our participation. That’s a good reason for sanctions….” The Iranian nuclear program appeared to strike Ellison as a less deserving target.

It is unusual to hear even dovish Democrats talk about dramatically upgrading relations with a self-proclaimed enemy of the United States without exacting any changes in behavior from the country: As Ellison said in his NIAC talk, “When we put up an embassy or an interest section in another country, it’s not a gift to them… You’re not doing something for the other country by having someone to look after our interests there, and by withdrawing it, it’s not a punishment.” Along with the idiosyncratic Dennis Kucinich and Justin Amash, Ellison was one of only 11 members of Congress to vote against the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act in December of 2011, which expanded sanctions against Iran’s energy sector.

In August of 2013, NIAC lauded Ellison for being one of 20 members of the House of Representatives to “stand up to the war lobby” by opposing additional sanctions in a House vote that occurred three months before the start of serious, publicly acknowledged nuclear negotiations with Iran. In May of 2015, Ellison was one of only five Democratic members of Congress to vote against the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which submitted the July 2015 nuclear deal to a potential vote and compelled the White House to disclose documents relevant to the agreement to Congress. (A number of hawkish Republicans, including incoming CIA director Mike Pompeo, also voted against the bill, but because they felt its oversight mechanisms weren’t rigorous enough). 

Keith Ellison’s long-term relationship with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam may be in his past, while leading Jewish Democrats like Chuck Schumer continue to vouch for his present status as a “friend” of Israel—even despite his embrace of clerics who fund Hamas and his public positions against funding missile defense programs for the Jewish State. Yet if Ellison does become DNC chair, it would bring enthusiastic and often uncritical supporters of the U.S.-Iran relationship closer to the center of power of the Democratic Party. It would also create an unavoidable contrast with the incoming Republican president, who has stocked his administration with national security figures who are deeply skeptical of Tehran—thereby cementing the Iran Deal as a defining feature of America’s partisan divide. 

**** Keith Ellison seems void of this information or he conveniently ignores it. Does the DNC really want him as Chairman?

Declassified IDF Map Shows Hezbollah Installations Embedded in Civilian Areas

Tower: A map released Tuesday by the Israel Defense Forces shows the degree to which Hezbollah has embedded itself into the Lebanese civilian population. The map shows hundreds of military emplacements, including weapons depots, rocket launchers, and terror tunnels, that Hezbollah has constructed in preparation for its next war against Israel.

2016-12-06_idf_hezbollah_map

Hezbollah’s deliberate positioning of military infrastructure in Lebanese villages, a tactic that the IDF has called a “war crime,” is consistent with the Iran-backed terror organization’s history of exploiting civilians to launch wars against Israel.

It was reported in 2013 that Hezbollah was paying poor Shi’ite families in southern Lebanon to allow them to store weapons in their homes, effectively making them human shields.

An Israeli defense official told The New York Times in May 2015 that Hezbollah’s buildup in southern Lebanese villages meant that “civilians are living in a military compound….We will hit Hezbollah hard, while making every effort to limit civilian casualties as much as we can…[but] we do not intend to stand by helplessly in the face of rocket attacks.” A few days later, a newspaper linked to Hezbollah confirmed the Israeli assessment.

Hezbollah has “turned the Shiite villages…into essentially missile silos,” Jonathan Schanzer, the vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said in July.

Noting the threat posed by Hezbollah’s extensive rocket arsenal and its placement among civilians, Geoff Corn, an international military law expert at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, observed earlier this year that the resulting devastation from a war with these conditions would “both legally and morally…lie solely at the feet of Hezbollah.”

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which was passed unanimously to end the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, forbids countries from transferring weapons to the terror organization. However, Iran has continued to arm Hezbollah, and the Security Council has refused to act to enforce the resolution.

The IDF released a similar map two years ago showing that Hamas—also an Iranian client—had used a civilian neighborhood in Gaza to house its terrorist infrastructure.

**** There is more:

Iran possesses the largest and most diverse missile arsenal in the Middle East, with thousands of short and medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles capable of striking as far as Israel and southeast Europe.These weapon systems have become a central tool of Iranian power projection and anti-access/area-denial capabilities in the face of superior U.S. and Gulf Cooperation Council naval and air power in the Arabian Gulf region. While Iran has not yet tested or deployed a missile capable of striking the United States, it continues to hone longer-range missile technologies under the auspices of its space-launch program. In addition to increasing the quantity of its missile arsenal, Iran is investing in qualitative improvements to in its missile’s accuracy and lethality. Iran has also become a center for missile proliferation, supplying proxies such as Hezbollah and Syria’s al-Assad regime with a steady supply of missiles rockets, as well as local production capability. Furthermore, Iran is likely supplying Houthi rebel groups with short-range missiles in the ongoing conflict in Yemen.

Iranian Missiles