web analytics
August 28, 2015 / 13 Elul, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Jen Psaki’

US-Backed Yemeni President and Entire Gov’t Resigns

Thursday, January 22nd, 2015

The Iranian-backed Shia Houthi rebels captured Sana’a, the capital of Yemen in September. For the past two days the rebels surrounded President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi’s palace. On Thursday, Jan. 22, the president and his cabinet resigned.

Although Hadi had reportedly made concessions to the Houthis so that they would withdraw from the grounds surrounding his house, the rebels refused to leave.

State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said that the U.S. is assessing and seeking confirmation of the report of Hadi’s resignation.

In addition to the president and his cabinet, the entire government also submitted its resignation.

It is unclear who is in control of the Yemeni government at this moment, but the fear is that al-Qaeda, which has a strong presence in the country, will seize greater control.

US Re-Defines ‘Unilateral’ to Justify PA Burying the Oslo Accords

Wednesday, December 17th, 2014

The United States stated on Wednesday that not every resolution the Palestinian Authority presents to the United Nations Security Council is necessarily a ”unilateral” step, a term used in the Oslo Accords that prohibits Israel and the Palestinian Authority from taking steps that would preclude negotiations.

Article XXXI of the Oslo 2 Accords, signed by the Palestinian Authority and Israel, states:

Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

This article prohibits unilateral measures which would alter the legal status of the areas, such as annexation or declaration of statehood.

Every time the Palestinian Authority turns to the United Nations, it is a unilateral action that violates the Oslo Accords. In truth, it doesn’t matter because there have been enough other gross violations that render it null and void.

Examples are, unilaterally halting security cooperation with Israel, exceeding the overall limit on the number of Palestinian “police,” failure to coordinate movement of Palestinian police, detention of Israeli citizens without notifying Israel, and failure to enforce restrictions on visitors’ permits

The United States has consistently winked its eye at the violations, but U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s spokeswoman Jen Psaki revealed that the Obama administration has turned around former policy by specifically putting a stamp of approval on the Palestinian Authority’s proposing a resolution to the U.N. Security Council on its future status if it “does not prejudge the outcome of the negotiations.”

How can she do such a thing? It’s simple. You just re-define the word “unilateral.”

Here is what deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf had to say last May, referring to Palestinian Authority threats to approach to the United Nations when her boss’s Peace Talks Follies fell apart:

We don’t think either side should do anything to complicate efforts right now to build the trust necessary to resume negotiations. No one should take any steps that undermine trust, including unilateral.

That was six months ago.

Psaki told reporters Tuesday, “UN Security Council resolution is not, in our view, a unilateral measure by either one of the parties. There are the – obviously, the details are what matter. And so our objection here, and our objection historically has been to measures that would prejudge the outcome of the negotiations. If you had a Security Council resolution from the Palestinians, which we’ve had in the past, that sought to have them recognized as a member of the – of – as a member state, that’s a unilateral action, as you all know. But if you were to do some kind of terms of reference in the Security Council resolution, that would not be what we would consider to be a unilateral step….

“We have supported a range of actions in the past. What we haven’t supported is steps that are unilateral actions that predetermine the outcome of negotiations.”

Kerry, speaking from London, said, “This isn’t the time to detail private conversations or speculate on a U.N. Security Council resolution that hasn’t even been tabled, no matter what pronouncements are made publicly about it.”

In plain talk, the U.S. State Dept. has given the green light for a resolution that does not specifically recognize the Palestinian Authority as a country  but leaves the door open for a resolution that calls on Israel to commit itself to “negotiations” based on Israel “withdrawing” from all land that is to be part of a new Arab country.

The fancy semantic footwork is the expertise of western diplomats trying to prejudge an outcome of negotiations by leaving open no other possibility.

State Dept.: Anti-Settlement Policy Will Remain even After Obama Leaves

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

The State Dept. insists that its anti-settlement policy is not dependent on President Barack Obama and will continue even after he leaves the White House in January 2017.

Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon told high school students this week in Gush Etzion, which the United States considers “illegal,” that the  Obama Administration “won’t be around forever” and that Israel will resume building for Jews in Judea and Samaria once he is gone as president.

He apparently thinks Hillary Clinton won’t succeed Obama.

Ya’alon has a habit of saying what he thinks before he thinks. Earlier this year, he was quoted as stating in “private” remarks that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is “obsessed ‘and has a Messianic complex when it comes to the “Peace Process.”

He didn’t bother to think that his remarks to the high school students this week would be quoted, but maybe it is better off to give the White House a not so gentle reminder that it is going to have to fight hard in the Israeli election campaign if it wants to get rid of people like Ya’alon, who don’t take orders from Washington., which thinks otherwise.

“This Administration’s opposition to settlements is fully consistent with the policies of administrations for decades, including of both parties. So the notion that would change is not borne out by history,” State Dept. spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters at Wednesday’s press question and answer session,

She agreed that Obama will be out of office in two years, pending a sudden change in the U.S. Constitution, and the next administration is not going to change anything regarding the audacity of Israel to build homes for Jews in half of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, where it had been doing so for more than 40 years before President Obama blew in with the wind.

Previous administrations, contrary to what Psaki says, never have been called Jews “illegitimate” for living in areas of Jerusalem that the Palestinian Authority, with the backing of the State Dept. thinks is their God-given property.

Ya’alon notwithstanding, Israel will be stuck with American opposition to Jews living within Israel’s borders that the United States determines, according to Psaki.

It is unusual for a State Dept. spokesperson to predict what future administrations will determine.

Maybe she knows something that no one knows, but it is more likely that her comments give testament to an attempt to make the State Dept.’s long-standing pro-Arab policy part of the White House Bible.

State Dept. Spokeswoman’s Blooper: “US Position on Egypt ‘Ridiculous’

Saturday, December 6th, 2014

U.S. State Dept. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki showed exhaustion from having to parrot absurd American policy and was caught on a “hot mike” last week saying that her department’s lack of reaction to an Egyptian court acquittal of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak on murder charges was “ridiculous.”

Psaki and her sidekick Marie Harf entertain reporters every weekday with non-answers to questions, which is the job of spokesmen. Their function is to defend their bosses, no matter how stupid they sound.

That is why Psaki constantly ignores incitement by the Palestinian Authority and constantly calls on Israel not to take any action that would “inflame tensions” after terrorist attacks.

That also is why she kept a straight face when questioned by reporters about the Egyptian decision. She set a near record for then number of times saying “no comment” in several different ways.

One reporter opened the issue by asking, “Do you have any reaction to the court’s decision dropping the charges against former President Mubarak?”

Psaki answered, “Generally, we continue to believe that upholding impartial standards of accountability will advance the political consensus on which Egypt’s long-term stability and economic growth depends,” she said. “But beyond that, I would refer you to the Egyptian government.”

Associated Press reporter Matt Lee, one of the few daily briefing reports who asks Psaki and hardball questions, couldn’t restrain himself.

 But I – wow. I don’t understand that at all. What does that mean? You believe that – of course you do. But was that – were those standards upheld in this case?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything – any specific comment on the case. I’d point you to the Egyptian Government.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) justice was served? Do you think justice was served in this case?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything specific on the case…..

QUESTION: — to argue with you or ask about the comment. Are you trying to understand what is – does – this decision means?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything more for you.

Do we have anything more on Egypt?

QUESTION: Do Egyptians explain to you what’s going on?

MS. PSAKI: We obviously remain in close touch with the Egyptians, but I don’t have anything more to peel back for you….

QUESTION: Yeah, but I mean, Transparency International is basically disappointed with that. And some international organizations have also expressed concern over, like, dropping all the charges against Mubarak, who’s accused of having murdered – having ordered the murder of protestors…and also corruption, other things. And so you’re not willing to show your concern over that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we speak frequently, including in annual reports, about any concerns we have about – whether its rule of law or freedom of speech, freedom of media, and we do that on a regular basis. I just don’t have anything more specifically for you on this case.”

Lee persisted and said, “You call for accountability and transparency all the time from any number of governments. And so if no one is held to account, if no one is being held accountable for what happened, it would seem to me that you would have a problem with that and “

Psaki assured him, “If there’s more we have to say, Matt, we will make sure you all know.

Lee tried again:

But I mean, what you have said, that the – what you said says nothing. I mean, it just – it’s like saying, “Well, we support the right of people to breathe.” Well, that’s great, but if they can’t breathe —

MS. PSAKI: If we have a further comment on the case, I will make sure all of you have it. ”Al Quds correspondent Said Arikat persisted, “I mean, aren’t you a little bit annoyed that the person who was elected by the Egyptian people, Morsi, is languishing in prison while the person who is accused of murdering hundreds of people is actually out on —

Psaki, obviously a bit fed up with having to parrot the insane American policy, tried to smile while saying, “I appreciate your effort, Said. I don’t have anything further on this case.”

US on Demolishing Homes: No in Israel, Yes in Egypt

Saturday, November 15th, 2014

The same U.S. State Dept. that is condemning Israel’s policy of demolishing Palestinian Authority terrorists’ homes sanctions the same destruction by Egypt of hundreds of civilians’ homes in the Sinai.

State Dept. spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Thursday said it was “counterproductive” for Israel to demolish the homes of terrorists.

When asked Friday about Egypt’s al-Sisi regime’s demolitions of Sinai homes, whose owners’ only crime was living in an area that Egypt wants as a buffer zone with Gaza, she condoned Egypt’s action.

“There have been some serious security challenges in the Sinai,” Psaki said. “We respect Egypt’s concern about their security in the area and support its right to self-defense. We also expect that they will ensure the rights of those being displaced are respected and that they are adequately compensated. That continues to be what we have conveyed to the Egyptians.”

And how about Israel’s right to self-defense?

“So you don’t regard that as being counterproductive to the cause of peace or fighting extremism, these home demolitions?” in the Sinai, asked Associated Press reporter Matt Lee. “You would not argue that – I mean, you say that there are serious security problems in the Sinai for the Egyptians. Are there not also serious security concerns and security problems for the Israelis?…

”It’s not okay for the Israelis to demolish homes, but it’s okay for the Egyptians to demolish homes?”

Psaki dug up the expired “borders’ argument, to wit:

“Well, it’s an entirely different scenario, Matt. Egypt is not predetermining what borders would be by taking these steps. It’s a different scenario….

We believe it’s counterproductive to their stated goals. In Egypt, we understand their concerns about their security. We’ve seen recent threats to that in the Sinai, as you all have reported on. I think I’m going to leave it at that. They’re different scenarios.”

No, no, Madame Psaki, you may not leave it at that.

She is explicitly saying that since the Obama administration backs the Palestinian Authority claim that half of Jerusalem belongs to a country that does not exist, Israel does not have the right to try to deter terror by tearing down the homes of a terrorist who killed an American-Israeli baby in a vehicle terror attack at a Jerusalem light rail station last month.

She is saying Israel may not send a warning to future terrorists by destroying the home of the attempted murderer who last month shot at point-blank range Rabbi Yehuda Glick for wanting the right for Jews to pray on the Temple Mount.

Psaki is explicitly saying that Egypt has the right to tear down not one home, and not dozens of homes but hundreds of homes of civilians – not terrorists – in Sinai because it is an act of self-defense. In Israel it is “counterproductive.”

Thousands of people on the Egyptian side of Rafah were displaced three weeks ago when the Egyptian army dynamited their homes to create the buffer zone that Egypt hopes will help put a stop to the surge of weapons and terrorists into the Sinai from Hamas-controlled Gaza.

The difference between Israel and Egypt, according to the Obama administration, is that Israel has no right to deter terror if terrorists are killing Jews because of the assumed motive of securing borders for the Palestinian Authority and which Washington has pre-determined and which preclude negotiations that the same Obama administration tries to make believe exist.

US Decides Destroying Arab Terrorists’ Homes Is ‘Counterproductive’

Friday, November 14th, 2014

The U.S. State Dept. has decided that Israel should not destroy the home of the terrorists because doing so would be “counterproductive to the cause of peace and exacerbate an already tense situation.”

The decree was announced to reporters on Thursday by State Dept. spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who called the idea of demolishing a terrorist’s home “punitive.”

She did not suggest how to get it through the heads of terrorists that their families will pay a heavy price for murder, but the thousands of experts working in Foggy Bottom usually insists that punishment be carried out according to American standards.

Read them their rights and warn them that confessing to a crime may be held against them. Don’t harm their property because that might stir up anger among the neighboring radical jihadists.

Be nice to terrorists, and they will end up loving you.

Give them the border they demand so they can kill to eliminate all borders.

How could Israel ever exist without the State Dept.?

 

Snide Remarks from State Dept. Over Jerusalem Housing Plans

Monday, November 3rd, 2014

The United States has — again — expressed its strong disapproval over the latest plans to build badly-needed housing in an overcrowded Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem.

The district planning and building committee today (Monday, Nov. 3) approved 500 new housing units in the Ramat Shlomo section of Jerusalem, an area built after the 1967 Six Day War. The State Department slammed the move, calling it “unfortunate” and “illegitimate.”

A week ago, the prime minister’s office approved plans to build 600 new housing units in the same neighborhood, in addition to 400 units in Har Homa, another post-1967 neighborhood in the capital.

Washington said at that point that Israel was taking steps that were “not conducive to peace in the region and a two-state solution.”

The State Department expressed “deep concern” over plans for what it called “settlement construction” in Jerusalem, in a loud echo of the anger bellowing from microphones in the Palestinian Authority.

But none of the neighborhoods in Jerusalem even faintly resembles a “settlement” and there is nothing remotely agrarian or rural about any of them.

Nevertheless, while meeting with U.S. officials in Washington, PA spokesperson Abu Rudaineh called today’s housing approval a “direct challenge” to the Obama administration” in a clear attempt to provoke the U.S. into attacking Israel.

A spokesperson for the far left ‘Peace Now’ organization eagerly aided and abetted the effort, telling the AFP news agency the approved housing units in Ramat Shlomo would “expand” the neighborhood’s existing “settlement.”

To put this all in perspective, please note that the average Israeli residential high-rise in Jerusalem’s Romema neighborhood, not far from the Central Bus Station, is built with eight to ten floors and features two or four units on each floor. So we are talking about the equivalent of perhaps a dozen to eighteen high-rise buildings – maybe double that if they are smaller. An addition of two streets, maybe.

This is called “expansion” of a “settlement?” Really?

State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki underlined the sharp disappointment of the Obama government with the decision in her news briefing, claiming that Israel had no interest in peace with the Palestinian Authority because the housing project had been approved.

“Obviously, if they were going to restart a peace negotiation we would be seeing actions,” she said. “Actions like these are contrary to that objective.”

Oddly, she made no mention of the Palestinian Authority unity government’s violation of the cease-fire agreement on Friday night, by allowing Gaza terrorists to fire a rocket at southern Israel. The rocket landed in the Eshkol Regional Council district but did not injure anyone and did not cause property damage.

For some strange reason, Psaki and her boss have not considered the multiple violations of the cease-fire that have taken place since August to be ‘actions’ that signal the Palestinian Authority has no interest in “restarting a peace negotiation.”

A thinking person targeted in a rocket attack or some other form of terrorist violence (such as a shooting, rock attack or firebombing) might actually think that “actions like these are contrary to that objective.”

No?

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/snide-remarks-from-state-dept-over-jerusalem-housing-plans/2014/11/03/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: