web analytics
December 11, 2016 / 11 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Report: Kerry’s Push for Iran Bank Transactions Defies Obama Administration Guidelines

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016

At an awards ceremony in London on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry declared that there are clear guidelines set by the Obama administration to protect banks doing business with Iran from American sanctions, even if the money they pour into Iran ends up in the accounts of entities that are still being sanctioned. According to The Weekly Standard, citing Republicans in Congress, that statement is disturbingly misleading, and reflects a fight that’s going on inside the Obama Administration.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fl) told the Standard that Kerry “appears to be more concerned with acting as Iran’s de facto trade representative than criticizing the regime for taking hostages, not coming clean on Bob Levinson’s case, and supporting terrorists attacking the United States.”

The senator warned US companies about the financial risks involved in doing business with Iran, especially the Revolutionary Guard, whose “tentacles are pervasive throughout the Iranian economy.”

“That’s the opposite of what Treasury Undersecretary [Adam] Szubin said a few weeks ago,” writes Omri Ceren, who notes that Szubin, discussing the same guidelines Kerry was alluding to, said there is “an enhanced level of due diligence” regarding doing business with Iran, asserting that the US would continue to impose “the most draconian sanctions in our toolkit” on firms that get caught working with the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (IRGC).

According to the Washington Free Beacon, tensions have been brewing between State and the Treasury over the Administration efforts to boost Iran’s economy with unprecedented access to US money: should US banks be held accountable if by following Kerry’s urgings they stumble over Szubin’s harsh restrictions. Can the US President allow this kind of yawning gap between the positions of two of his top departments?

The rest of this story is dedicated to the Kerry haters in the crowd… At the Chatham House Prize ceremony in London on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry praised his award co-recipient, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (who didn’t show up), saying: “I want to make it clear that Javad is a very tough, very capable negotiator, a patriot all the time, who fought hard for his nation’s interests, while always trying to find a constructive way to solve the problems that we both understood were gigantic hurdles for both of our countries, for both of our people, for our politics, and the divisions that exist at home for each of us.”

Yes, one man’s heartfelt praise is another man’s clear example of Stockholm Syndrome, especially in light of Kerry’s praise for supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at that same awards event: “I think ultimately to the credit of the ayatollah and Iran, they made a fundamental decision they were willing to submit to the scrutiny and give up that [nuclear] program.”

Give up the program? More like suspend some of it for about four years, according to mainstream media reports.

And while praising those two promoters of global and regional terrorism, Kerry took a last-chance swipe at Prime Minister Netanyahu, for his failed opposition to the nuclear deal. “There were powerful forces,” Kerry said, “that were deeply opposed to this. I mean, it’s not often that a prime minister of another country comes to the Congress, and in the middle of the Congress speaks against the sitting president’s policy. That happened, and you can imagine the forces that were unleashed as a result, and the tension that existed.”

To sum up: In John Kerry’s feverish mind, Iran’s murderous leaders are the good guys, deserving of lavish investments from US banks, even if some of the money goes to Iranian groups that scheme to annihilate the country led by Netanyahu, the bad guy.

Can’t wait for Friday, January 20, when this bad dream officially ends.

David Israel

So Many People Waiting for the Day…

Sunday, October 30th, 2016

Video of the Day

Obama Shouldn’t Tie his Successor’s Hands on Israel-Palestine

Sunday, October 30th, 2016

AS THE ELECTION draws closer, the Obama administration is sending strong signals that it may make a major push to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the United Nations. Despite repeated attempts to jump-start the peace process — most notably, by Secretary of State John Kerry in 2014 — and despite repeated invitations by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to President Mahmoud Abbas to meet without preconditions, the stalemate persists. Some blame it on Palestinian unwillingness to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and to compromise to the so-called “right of return.” Others — including the current US administration — lay the blame largely at the feet of the Netanyahu government, for continuing to build in the West Bank, most recently with the approval of 98 to 300 new homes in Shiloh. Whatever the reasons — and they are complex and multifaceted — President Obama should resist any temptation to change longstanding American policy — that only direct negotiations between the parties will achieve a lasting peace — during his final weeks in office.

In particular, Obama should veto an expected French resolution in the United Nations Security Council establishing an international peace conference under the auspices of the UN. The general parameters of the French resolution, as currently drafted, would likely call for:

“Borders based on the 1967 Lines with agreed equivalent land swaps; security arrangements preserving the sovereignty of the Palestinian State and guaranteeing the security of Israel; a fair, equitable, and negotiated solution to the refugee problem; an arrangement making Jerusalem the capital of both states.”

These guidelines may sound reasonable. Indeed, they are strikingly similar to the offers made to, and rejected by, the Palestinian leadership, in 2000-2001, from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and former US President Bill Clinton and, in 2008, by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The UN, however, has disqualified itself from playing any constructive role in the peace process. Recent attempts by the UN to intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have produced unmitigated disasters. The Goldstone Report — which sought to investigate allegations of war crimes committed during the 2009 Israeli intervention in Gaza — was so blatantly biased against Israel that Richard Goldstone, who chaired the investigation, himself had to retract some of its key findings, in 2011.
Get Todays Headlines in your inbox:

Since then, the UN has done nothing to reassure Israel that the organization is capable of offering an unbiased forum for negotiations. In the past year alone, the UN has singled out Israel for special criticism on issues like health rights and, most laughably, women’s rights, while failing even to mention regimes whose record on these issues is truly abominable. Last year alone, at least 20 separate resolutions were adopted by the UN General Assembly, which singled out Israel for special criticism. In light of such behavior, the United States should not trust that Israel would receive a fair hearing at any UN-sponsored peace conference.

As Netanyahu said in his most recent speech to the General Assembly, “The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York.” In other words, the only way forward for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is bilateral negotiations between the two parties. Netanyahu and Abbas must sit down and agree to necessary but painful compromises aimed at establishing a Palestinian state while addressing Israel’s security concerns and the realities on the ground. Resolutions like the proposed French resolution undermine such efforts by encouraging the Palestinians to believe that direct negotiations — and the mutual sacrifices they would entail — are unnecessary, and that a Palestinian state can be achieved on the basis of UN resolutions alone. It would also make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the Palestinian Authority to accept anything less than that already given them by the UN — which would in turn guarantee the failure of any realistic negotiations.

It is for these and other reasons that American policy has long been to veto or otherwise derail UN attempts to interfere with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process even when it is stalled. As Obama said in 2013:

“We seek an independent, viable, and contiguous Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. The only way to achieve that goal is through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians themselves.”

Hillary Clinton, too, has stated that she supports bilateral negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, and her campaign has said that she “believes that a solution to this conflict cannot be imposed from without.”

Recently, however, several past and present Obama officials have apparently advised the president to support, or at least not veto, the French resolution, as well as a one-sided Palestinian push to have the UN declare Israeli settlements illegal. It would be wrong for Obama to unilaterally reverse decades of US foreign policy during the lame-duck period. After all, in 2011 his administration vetoed an almost identical Palestinian proposal that called for Israel to “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.” Similarly, until now, Obama has repeatedly pressured the French and other European nations not to put forward any proposal related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the grounds that such initiatives discourage bilateral negotiations. This is surely the view of the majority of the Senate — which has its own constitutional authority to participate in foreign policy decisions. In fact, 88 senators signed an open letter to Obama in which they called on the president to veto any Security Council resolutions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Obama must realize that no lasting peace can be achieved in the remaining months of his presidency. There are a multitude of complex and contentious issues — most notably, the status of Jerusalem, the rights of so-called Palestinian refugees, and the situation in Gaza — that must be thoroughly addressed in order to achieve a lasting peace. Our next president will undoubtedly have to wade into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process again. The new administration — with the agreement of the Senate — should have full latitude to do what it deems most appropriate. It should not be stuck with parameters bequeathed to it by a president desperate to secure a short-term foreign policy “victory” that in the long term will make a resolution of the conflict more difficult to achieve.

If Obama feels that he must intrude in an effort to break the logjam before he leaves office, he should suggest that the current Israeli government offer proposals similar to those offered in 2000-2001 and 2008, and that this time the Palestinian leadership should accept them in face-to-face negotiations. But he should take no action (or inaction) that invites UN involvement in the peace process — involvement that would guarantee failure for any future president’s efforts to encourage a negotiated peace.

We should hear the views of both candidates on whether the United States should support or veto a Security Council Resolution that would tie their hands were they to be elected president.

 

Alan M. Dershowitz

Report: US, Egypt, Asking PA Not to Approach UN Security Council before US Elections

Friday, October 21st, 2016

The US and Egypt, which is a temporary member of the UN Security Council, have recently passed on messages to the Palestinian Authority leadership asking them not to promote any move against Israel until after the Nov. 8 elections in the US, Ha’aretz reported, citing a senior PA source. The source claimed there have been several messages, direct and indirect—through Arab and Western go-betweens, warning that the US would veto any anti-Israel move initiated prior to the elections, including condemnation of the settlement enterprise.

The source noted that, despite their “dissatisfaction” with these requests, the PA leadership will restrain itself and avoid any UNSC move until after the elections. However, as soon as voting in the US is over, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is determined to accelerate his plan to promote an anti-settlements vote at the council, the source said. The same PA official admitted, however that “so far there has been no agreement on the final draft and we are not clear what the American position would be.”

Sources inside Abbas’s office have told Ha’aretz that the chairman’s recent contacts with US officials, including a meeting with Sec. John Kerry, have not created the impression that the Administration is planning to initiate a UNSC move, or even support another member country’s initiative. “We have no illusions or expectations that the Americans would not veto or torpedo a proposal submitted to the UNSC,” a senior Palestinian official said. “We also haven’t heard of an outline being worked on or any proposal to be put forth in the future. All we hear are ideas.”

A month ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he “hoped” President Obama would not seek to establish a Palestinian state at the UN. Asked if Obama had promised him that he would not seek to establish a state of Palestine without Israel’s cooperation before the end of his term in January, Netanyahu told the Jerusalem Post: “If you’re asking if he spoke to me about this, the answer is no. If you’re asking me if I am hoping that he won’t do this, the answer is yes.”

JNi.Media

Netanyahu Asking Kerry to Avoid UN 2-State Resolution

Tuesday, October 11th, 2016

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday night phoned Secretary of State John Kerry to tell him Israel expected the Obama Administration not to change its policy and promote or support a vote on the Israeli-PA conflict at the UN Security Council between the November 8 vote and the inauguration of the next US president in January, Ha’aretz reported citing an anonymous Israeli official.

According to the same source, Kerry responded by saying the Administration has not yet made its decision on this matter — which is probably what he would have said if he didn’t want an Obama anti-Israel move to hit the news before the election.

The chances for a hostile American move have increased following reports on the plan to relocate the Jewish residents of Amona in Judea and Samaria, which is slated for demolition on orders from the Israeli Supreme Court, to new homes that will be built for them in nearby Shilo, also in Judea and Samaria. This is because while the Supreme Court only objects to keeping Jewish residents on land whose ownership has been disputed by local Arabs, the US objects to any sign of new Jewish life in Judea and Samaria.

According to Ha’aretz, Netanyahu did not raise the issue of an anti-Israel US vote at the UNSC during his meeting with President Obama in New York in September. But following Netanyahu’s meeting with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a few days later, the latter issued a statement saying she objects to any unilateral US move against Israel at the UN. Netanyahu is hoping that, should she win—which appears to be a certainty at this point—Clinton would restrain Obama during the transition period.

Pundit Eli Lake writing for Bloomberg suggested the mildest move on Obama’s part after November 8 would be a speech in favor of the two-state solution. This approach is similar to a speech Bill Clinton gave at the end of his presidency that laid out such parameters. Lake expects Obama to disclose in such a speech the concessions Netanyahu and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas were willing to make in their negotiations that fell apart in 2014.

A second option, which Hillary Clinton has vowed to try and block, could be US support for a new Security Council resolution to replace resolution 242, which was drafted after the 1967 Israeli liberation of the territories occupied by Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1949. 242 does not mention a Palestinian State, but instead calls on Israel to return liberated territories to the Arab aggressors along its borders.

A third option would be for the Obama Administration to declare war on rightwing Israeli NGOs. Anti-Israel Jewish organizations such as J Street have suggested altering the US tax code to exclude rightwing Israeli NGOs which today frustrate Arab illegal settlement in Area C, placed under Israeli custody in the Oslo Accords. The NGO Regavim, for instance, has done an aggressive job compelling the Israeli Supreme Court as well as the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria to act against illegal Arab squatters, enraging the EU and Us which have been paying for those illegal settlements.

Finally, the Obama Administration might declare its recognition of a Palestinian State in borders that include Area C, and issue an ultimatum for Israel to withdraw its military and civilians from the new state. It’s probably the least likely option, but it’s out there, being bandied about in think tanks in Washington DC and in Jerusalem.

JNi.Media

Arab Terrorist Murders Two, Wounds Five Jews After Obama Admin Initiates New Crisis With Israel

Tuesday, October 11th, 2016

Originally published at Western Journalism

Just over a week after the White House declared Jerusalem was not a part of Israel, and a couple of days after the Obama Administration launched its most vicious attack on Israel to date, a Palestinian gunman took the streets of Jerusalem to murder Israeli Jews.

If you think making the link between these events is far-fetched, you are mistaken.

Musbah Abu Shbeih, a Palestinian Arab from East Jerusalem, went on a shooting spree in Jerusalem Sunday morning. The terrorist shot dead two Israelis and wounded five others while driving his car from French Hill to the Shimon HaTzadik neighborhood near the Old City.

He was acting upon increasing anti-Israeli incitement, internal security minister Gilad Erdan said after the bloody attack.

Erdan blamed Facebook, in particular, for the terrorist attack.

“We have said all along that due to the rise in incitement, individuals would perpetrate attacks. Facebook has just reopened pages of Palestinian terrorism because of external pressure and that is scandalous,” Erdan said while stopping short of addressing the unprecedented anti-Israel rhetoric coming out of the White House last week.

The Palestinian terrorist was expected to begin a four-month prison sentence on Sunday for 15 acts of incitement to violence and seven acts of supporting terrorist organizations.

Israel National News published an example of the inciting message he posted on Facebook in the past.

“Your festival is the force of victory and an opportunity to us. 19 of your soldiers were killed. Oh child murderer, cowardly despicable soldiers the heroes of Alkassam (Izz-a-Din Al Qassam Hamas’ military wing have dragged your heads in the mud. Alkassam and soldiers of the resistance, Allah Aqbar and praises to god,” he wrote after the summer war in Gaza and just before Jewish New Year in 2014.

The terrorist most likely reacted to a call of Hamas to renew the so-called Al-Aqsa Intifada, the knife Jihad of lone-wolf terrorists that started last year just before the High Holidays in Israel, Israeli TV Channel 10 reported on Sunday evening.

The fact the call was issued at this very moment has to do with the latest crisis between the Obama Administration and the Israeli Government.

That crisis started last week after the White House and the State Department issued a sharply worded statement about an Israel plan to build 96 housing units for Jewish families that will be displaced as a result of the scheduled destruction of their unauthorized outpost Amona near Shilo in Samaria.

The administration went as far as to use terminology that usually is reserved for the crimes of rogue regimes, such as the Syrian government, and for terrorist attacks.

The White House “strongly condemned” the Israeli plan (instead of expressing “concern”) and falsely claimed the plan would make it much harder to implement the so-called Two State Solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

In reality, the building will take place within the existing municipal borders of Shilo, and no new settlement will be built as the administration falsely claimed.

The Palestinians, however, saw what happened and apparently decided to do what they always do whenever there is political pressure upon Israel from Western countries, especially the United States.

They reverted to terror.

The same happened in March 2010, after the visit of Vice President Joe Biden to Israel.

A public spat between Israel and the Obama Administration about the announcement of a new building project in the Jerusalem neighborhood Ramat Shlomo during the visit of Biden almost led to the Third Intifada.

At the time, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded more than an apology from Israel and said Israel should take “concrete steps” towards peace.

Clinton later admitted the administration’s hard line toward Israel over the “settlements” had been a failure.

The administration’s harsh response to the plan led to more Palestinian intransigence and sparked massive riots in Jerusalem and the so-called West Bank.

Israeli pundits now say the same can happen in Jerusalem after Sunday’s shooting attack.

In a move rarely seen since the last decade Fatah, the ruling political movement in the so-called West Bank (Judea and Samaria) immediately announced a day of national mourning and called for a general strike after the Israeli police killed the terrorist in a shootout, Channel 10 reported.

The party of President Mahmoud Abbas also published a couple of inciting messages on its Facebook page, hailing the slain terrorist as a “martyr” and calling upon the Arabs to continue the fight against Israel until “Allah” will give them “victory.”

As a result, Arabs in East and North Jerusalem launched a strike and attacked Israeli police patrols in the Arab neighborhoods of Israel’s capital.

Israeli Arabs also clashed with Jews in the offices of the National Insurance Institute Bituach Leumi in Jerusalem while their Palestinian brethren stepped up their violent attacks on Jews in Judea and Samaria.

The increase of violence continued Monday when Arabs stoned an IDF patrol near A-Ram in Jerusalem and attacked buses and cars travelling from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria.

The Israeli authorities are bracing for more Arab violence in the coming days while former Obama official Martin Indyk warned the president could punish Israel for its alleged obstruction of the Two-State solution.

“At a certain point, the administration may well decide that there needs to be consequences for what it now sees as an effort to close off the two-state solution,” Indyk said.

He was referring to Israeli fears that Obama will refuse to veto a UN solution that will set a time line for the Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.

Those fears have become more realistic over the weekend after Saudi Arabia called upon the UN to introduce a new resolution that will end Israel’s “occupation from occupied Arab lands” and after The New York Timespublished an editorial suggesting Obama support such a resolution.

Yochanan Visser

Final Obama Battle Waged Against Amona Jews

Thursday, October 6th, 2016

The new, and, God Willing, final confrontation between the departing Obama Administration and the still ticking Netanyahu government appears to center on Amona, located on a hill overlooking Ofra in Benjamin Region, at the heart of the liberated territories.

BACKGROUND, SO WE’RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE

Amona was founded in 1995, and has 200-plus residents — 50-plus families. Amona’s very name is a densely packed tale of occupations: it is mentioned in the Book of Joshua 18:24 as Kfar HaAmmonai, meaning Village of the Amonites, but the Amonite kingdom was well to the east of the Jordan River, so that when the Israelite tribe of Benjamin took it over, it actually liberated it from foreign occupation. A dozen or so conquests later, Amona was initially redeemed and rebuilt in 1995, not as a community but as an archeological site and the location of the Mekorot national water company’s containers. In 1996, the head of the regional council, with the support of the defense ministry, placed three caravans with young people from Ofra on the Amona hill, for strategic purposes.

Since then, and until 2005, a succession of Israeli governments invested in Amona’s infrastructure and encouraged its settlement by young families, mostly from nearby Ofra. In fact, in 2001, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon encouraged the locals to start building permanent homes, into which they moved from the 30 or so caravans where they lived. In 2003, then Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu participated in the celebrations of opening the community’s first mikvah. There was no doubt that the State of Israel was sanctioning the Amona enterprise.

In 2004, the Amana residents completed construction of nine permanent homes. Then, in October 2004, the Israeli Civil Administration ordered the demolition of the same structures, based on complaints that the lands had been acquired illegally from local Arabs who used to graze their flocks there.

According to the Amona residents, the reason they can’t produce the proper registration of their land has to do with the Palestinian Authority law that penalizes anyone who sells land to Jews. Over the years, dozens of Arab real estate brokers who dared to sell to Jews, often through a straw man, have been imprisoned and even executed. The Jews of Amona claim they purchased most of the land from local Arabs, with the understanding that they would protect the sellers’ identity by not registering the sale.

In July 2005, Peace Now petitioned the Supreme Court, complaining that no demolition had been executed. And in November 2005, the destroyer of Gush Katif, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, ordered the demolition of Amona be carried out by the end of January 2006.

On February 1, 2006, local Jewish residents and a few thousand protesters, including several MKs, clashed with a force of 10,000 Police, Border Guard, and IDF troops. The cops were as brutal and cruel as Israel had ever seen. An estimated 300 Jewish protesters were injured. Young Jewish girls accused the cops of sexual assault.

Eventually, the nine newly built homes of Amona were destroyed.

In December 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the entire community of Amona had to be evacuated and their homes demolished. The court has rejected an idea by then cabinet secretary and now Attorney General Avihai Mandelblit, that in cases like Amona, where government was involved in a community’s establishment, the Arab claimant be compelled to accept market value or comparable land. Most recently, Habayit Hayehudi cabinet ministers have suggested moving the Amona residents to nearby land — and that is the move which caught the ire of the lame duck Obama Administration.

OBAMA HATE SETTLEMENTS

On Wednesday, in an angry press release reminiscent of the Days Secretary John Kerry was first realizing there was no Nobel Peace Prize for him for fathering a new Palestinian State, the State Department “strongly condemned” the planned Amona move, stressing it violates Israel’s promise not to build new settlements. State Department’s deputy spokesman, Mark Toner, said

“it is disheartening that while Israel and the world mourned the passing of President Shimon Peres, and leaders from the US and other nations prepared to honor one of the great champions of peace, plans were advanced that would seriously undermine the prospects for a two-state solution that he so passionately supported.”

Never mind what you do to us, look what you’re doing to Shimon!

The NY Times cited Martin Indyk, Obama’s special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and, as rumors have it, President Hillary Clinton’s next envoy for the same Sisyphean chore, who threatened, as only a Jew who passionately hates the idea of an independent and strong Israel can: “At a certain point, the administration may well decide that there needs to be consequences for what it now sees as an effort to close off the two-state solution.”

For his part, Spokesperson Toner told the State Dept. press briefing on Wednesday:

“…when we see Israel carry out this kind of action – new settlement activity, announcement of new settlement activity – that, frankly, contradicts its stated goal to have or to achieve or pursue a two-state solution, it raises serious concerns and we have to publicly and privately convey those concerns to the Government of Israel.”

Then came this from Toner:

“…with regard to the UN Security Council and any action at the UN, our position hasn’t changed. We’re always concerned, frankly, about one-sided resolutions or other actions that could be taken within the UN, and we’re always going to oppose those kinds of resolutions that we believe delegitimize Israel and undermine its security.” Then, having paid the proper lip service, Toner delivered the zinger: “But we’re going to carefully consider our future engagement, if and when we reach that point, and determine how to most effectively pursue and advance the objective that we all at least claim to share, which is that of achieving a negotiated two-state solution. That work is going to continue with our international partners and we’re going to continue to make clear when we have concerns, such as we do today, with regard to Israel’s actions. We’re going to make those concerns clear to the Israeli Government.”

Do you see the veiled threat of the US deciding to support or abstain at a UNSC unilateral vote on establishing a Palestinian State?

Netanyahu heard it, loud and clear. On Wednesday night, Israel’s Foreign Ministry (PM Netanyahu is also the Foreign Minister) issued a statement rejecting the American criticism, arguing that the construction plan the cabinet initiated a week ago does not constitute building a new settlement, and, besides, “the settlements are not the barrier to peace.”

“The 98 housing units approved for the Shiloh settlement do not constitute a new settlement,” went the statement. “These units are to be built on state-owned land in the existing settlement of Shiloh, and will not alter its municipal boundaries. These housing units are intended to provide housing to the residents of Amona who must leave their homes according to home demolition orders issued by the Supreme Court of Justice.”

The Netanyahu argument will probably not persuade Toner or Kerry and Obama for that matter. Their vision inherently encompasses Judea and Samaria as Judenrein (German for “clean of Jews”), and so the argument regarding Shiloh’s unchanged municipal boundaries is meaningless to them — they hold there shouldn’t have been a Jewish Shiloh there in the first place.

Or, as Toner put it,

“…that’s particularly why we find [Israel’s] actions so befuddling, when it takes actions such as continued settlement activity that run counter to what we’re all trying to achieve here. And so we’re going to continue to press that case to them. We have a very close and very frank and candid relationship with Israel. We’re going to continue to call it like we see it, and when we see this kind of activity that we believe is counterproductive, we’re going to say so.”

Al Quds reporter Said Arikat pressed Toner:

“You keep saying that the UN is a forum that is somehow inherently opposed to Israel, while in fact, it was created through that UN organization. But let me ask you this: I mean, if this is in occupied territory, which you acknowledge, and there are laws that pertain to the occupying power’s rights and privileges or obligations under international law, why not push forward, put your weight behind what is internationally lawful in this case, and bring Israel to bear on these issues – holding it to account?”

Toner would not say, because to actually reveal what the Administration is, presumably, planning for the day after November 8 could start WW3. But there’s no doubt that, should the US decide to support a UN vote on a two-state solution, Amona, that ancient home of the invaders from across the Jordan River, will definitely play a major role in the decision.

David Israel

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/final-obama-battle-waged-against-amona-jews/2016/10/06/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: