web analytics
August 2, 2015 / 17 Av, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘secretary of state’

Did Kerry Lie About ‘Anytime Anywhere?’

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2015

(JNi.media) Did Secretary of State John Kerry lie when he told the press and a number of legislators that the coming Iran nuclear deal involved “Anytime Anywhere” inspections? Did he offer this version of the truth while knowing too well the most the Iranians were going to accept was a 24-day warning before an inspection could be carried out?

Some Congressional leaders have told Bloomberg that they had been under the impression that Kerry was pressing Iran to allow UN inspectors access “anytime, anywhere” to sites suspected of nuclear activity.

Kerry denies it. When John Dickerson, host of Face The Nation asked him point blank on Sunday: “What happened, Mr. Secretary, with anytime, anywhere?” Kerry answered: “Never — this is a term that honestly I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating. It was not on the table.”

Kerry proceeded to lecture that “there’s no such thing in arms control as anytime, anywhere. There isn’t any nation in the world, none, that has an anytime, anywhere. And the truth is, what we always were negotiating was an end to the interminable delays that people had previously [imposed].”

In other words, in Kerry’s view, the 3-week span between requesting access to a facility and the inspectors being let in, is a victory of sorts. There will be no more delays — after those 3 week notices. Now “we have a finite time period. That’s never happened before. And we have one nation’s ability to take this to the Security Council to enforce it. That is unique. And we think it was a huge accomplishment to be able to get this finite period,” Kerry insisted.

Dickerson asked, “Just to check the record here, Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser, said in April “you will have anywhere, anytime, 24-7 access.”

Kerry responded: “Well, we do, but — we have access to Fordow, access to Natanz, access to these places.”

“I don’t know if he was referring everywhere, but an access resolution of an IAEA challenge for a suspected facility that’s undeclared, this is a breakthrough agreement which has a finite period that our intel community, and our scientists — and here is one of the foremost nuclear scientists in the country telling us that that is — there is no way for them to hide that material or do away in 24 days,” Kerry repeated.

Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator Bob Corker told Bloomberg: “I could have sworn that he had said that, but I know it’s been a topic of discussion for a long, long time.”

Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Senator Richard Burr told Bloomberg: “I think I heard Secretary Kerry use that term once.”

“Any lack of access, delay in time, or lack of being able to verify should be a concern to us,” Burr added.

Congresswoman Janice Hahn (D-Ca) holds that the deal should assure “anytime, anywhere” inspections.

Congressman Alan Lowenthal (D-Ca) told the House in June: “The goal of the ongoing P5+1 negotiations is to guarantee that Iran never develops a nuclear weapon. As Congress assesses the final deal, I am going to draw upon a recent publication which is entitled, ‘Negotiations with Iran: Five Requirements for a Good Deal,’ which details the following five components: one, mechanisms supporting strong verification, including anytime, anywhere inspections of all Iranian nuclear and military facilities…”

Back in April, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist who negotiated the technical details of a framework nuclear accord, told Bloomberg: “We expect to have anywhere, anytime access.”

On Sunday, Dickerson asked Prime Minister Netanyahu: “President Obama once said that he had Israel’s back. Do you think that he’s betrayed you here with this deal?”

Kerry’s Dramatic Statement: ‘No Agreement Yet’

Sunday, July 5th, 2015

 

A senior U.S. official, code for the State Dept., put the press on red alert around 17:00 (10 a.m. EDT) with a statement that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was to make an announcement half an hour later from Vienna, where he and the other P5+1 powers are trying to hammer out an agreement with Iran on is nuclear program.

More than 20 minutes past the announced time, with journalists waiting with bated breath in Vienna, where temperatures are nearly 100 degrees, Kerry made this breathtaking statement:

Progress has been made. No, an agreement is not yet there. We are not there yet. We have difficult issues still to resolve.

Tweets direct from Vienna added more of the same old clichés:

Prepared to walk away if they can’t get a deal that satisfies.

Pushing for deal by July 7 deadline

We are not yet where we need to be….this negotiation could go either way

We want a good agreement…We’re not going to shave, anywhere, at the margins, just to get an agreement.

We are closer than we have ever been.

We’re not going to negotiate in the press.

Right now we’re aiming to finish this in the time frame we’ve set out.

I think there’s a lot of speculation. It’s now time to see whether we are able to close the agreement.

Hillary Clinton Says She Will Be Better Friend than Obama to Israel

Saturday, July 4th, 2015

Hillary Clinton has promised that Israel will have her as a better friend than President Barack Obama if she is elected President next year.

She also exclaimed that Iran poses an “existential threat” to Israel, as if any serious presidential contender thinks otherwise.

While strongly supporting attempts for a “good” deal with Iran, she is trying to reassure wealthy Jews that they can safely contribute to her campaign coffers and can sleep safely last night knowing that she will be good for Israel, even if Israelis spend the night running to bomb shelters.

That is what President Obama also said in 2008. That is what every presidential candidate says, but American Jews lover to hear because they want to believe it.

When it comes to the deal being negotiated between the P5+1 and Iran, Clinton is playing both sides of the fence, and it is not clear where she stands. Politico interviewed 10 donors and fundraisers and reported:

Donors who see a deal as important to world peace have come away thinking that Clinton shares their perspective, but so, too, do donors who oppose any prospective agreement as compromising Israeli security.

Clinton is no different from Obama and every other politician. “No deal is better than a bad deal,” she said, but what is a bad deal? Is it possible to make any deal with Iran can call it “good?”

Since no one yet knows if a deal with Iran will be reached and if so, what it will contain, Clinton can safely hedge her bets.

At stake is $2 billion that Clinton’s aides hope to raise for her campaign and super PACs.

in the meantime, she is boasting that her personality and experience as Secretary of State are guarantees for Americans Jews that she will be a lot friendlier than Obama when it comes to relations with Israel.

She started name-dropping, referring to former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren as “Michael” whom she said she knows well.

The penchant for American Jews to buy assurances that the American-Israeli relation will be just fine and dandy was summed up by Politico’s report on a fundraiser last month at the home of Democratic party donor Jay Jacobs. An Orthodox rabbi asked Clinton about threats to Israel, and Jacobs told Politico:

She did stress in no uncertain terms her full and fervent support of the state of Israel and the defense of the state of Israel. And the people in the audience who heard it seemed to be comfortable with her answer.

Good grief!

What did the rabbi think she would say? Did he really believe that Clinton would say, “Well, you know all the talk about threats to Israel is just talk to get more money from the military-industrial complex. Israel can fend for itself. Let’s talk about the economy and immigration.”

Of course she fervently supports Israel. That is what J Street also says.

At least she was honest when she stated, “I’m going to do what’s in the best interest of the U.S.”

That is what any president of the United States should do. He or she should be “pro-American” and not “pro-Israel.”

The kicker is that being pro-Israel usually is the best thing for the United States, even if presidents can’t admit it.

Kerry Might Celebrate 4th of July by Talking with Iran on Deal

Sunday, June 28th, 2015

A senior U.S. official said Sunday it is prepared to extend talks with Iran beyond the June 30 deadline, which is a surprise to no one.

This is why The JewishPress.com has been laying low on the negotiations between the P5+1 and the Islamic Republic.
It was clear as the nose on U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s face that “deadline” in the Persian language means “maybe tomorrow.”

Talks have been going on for three years, and the “final” deadline of last November has been extended, as was every other deadline before and after.

President Barack Obama knows that Iran is playing games. Iran knows that Obama knows, and Obama knows that Iran knows… and so on and so forth.

The problem is that the game is over a nuclear weapon, which under Iran’s definition of peaceful purposes would be used as a threat to annihilate Israel and rid the world of Zionism, which is responsible for horrors such as the mobile phone, instant messaging, WAZE, drugs against Muscular Sclerosis, USB, Rummikub, the model for desalination, solar energy, drones, computer chips, breast tumor imaging and Natalie Portman.

We will back with more news around July 2 or maybe the 4th of July, when Iran can force Kerry to celebrate American Independence Day by sweating over a bad deal.

As for now, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif is playing out the script and returning to Tehran tonight. He will back on Monday for the next act.

European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini made one of the most unimportant comments of the year, stating that a final deal can be achieved if both show “strong political will.”

She added, “We stick to the foreseen timetable. If a few days more are needed, we can take them.”

Some say “a few is eight,” and even more. That would push talks dangerously close to mid-July and might muck up President Barack Obama’s rumored invitation to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at that time.

If the invitation is valid, it would set the stage for President Obama to snicker at Prime Minister Netanyahu over a deal that Israel would rather go the way of the Titanic, or brag how he backs Israel so much that he did not agree to a lousy deals that he knows Congress won’t approve.

‘Fed Up’ Black Voters May Help Elect Republican President in 2016

Wednesday, June 10th, 2015

Black voters disappointed by President Barack Obama may stay at home in next years’ presidential election or even vote Republican and escort the GOP into the White House.

The disappointment among blacks towards President Obama is similar to Middle East Muslims’ frustration with the President two years after his “reaching us to Muslims” speech in Cairo, except that American blacks have not reacted with the type of violent Arab Spring rebellions that turned to ashes whatever stability that existed in several Middle East countries.

Americans are more apathetic and simply “turn off,” but recent riots in Ferguson and Baltimore have brought back unwanted memories of the race riots of 1967.

American blacks were ecstatic in 2008 after the election of the first black president in the United States. Even Condoleezza Rice, a black, an avowed Republican and Secretary of State in the Bush administration, said she was proud when Americans voted Obama into the White House. Obama was liked by blacks not just because of his color but also because of his personality and style that showed a confident understanding and identity with the man on the street.

The Washington Post’s Robert Samuels, under the headline “Is it even worth backing Clinton?” wrote on Tuesday of one Florida voter’s feeling today after more than six years of Obama:

What was the point? We made history, but I don’t see change….“We got the president his job, but did he help us get any good jobs? I still need a raise.”

Samuels wrote, “Even a black president was unable to heal places still gripped by violence, drugs and joblessness.”

What has changed for blacks since 2008? The Tampa Tribune reported in 2013:

Blacks’ median income has fallen 11.1% under Obama, more than twice as much as whites. The disparity in wealth between whites and blacks nearly doubled during Obama’s tenure. According to CNN, the median net worth of the average white person is now 22 times as much as the average black person’s wealth, $110,729 to $4,995. The disparity between white and Hispanic wealth increased to a 15 to 1 ratio.

The identification by color with President Obama is indicated in the same report, which reported, “Despite these facts, a recent Pew survey found that the number of blacks who thought they were better off now than they were five years earlier almost doubled since 2007.”

Clinton can talk and promise all she wants, but she can’t change her color, except when she gets red-face in anger.

The only black candidate running for president is a Republican, retired Florida surgeon and political novice Dr. Ben Carson.

The Democratic front-runner is Hillary Clinton, who is the spitting image of the WASP do-good, limousine liberal aristocracy. Her most senior competition is Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a socialist and a Jew, the latter adjective far from being a magnet for enthusiasm among blacks.

Clinton faces a high hurdle among blacks because, as Samuels wrote, “If Obama’s presidency didn’t do more to help African Americans, then how could hers? She has promised “real reforms”,” but it is questionable if voters will buy promises.

A Washington Post-ABC poll shows that Clinton has 75 percent among African Americans who thought that Clinton understood the problems of “people like you,”, but that still is far below the 91 percent approval that Obama received. In addition, lack of enthusiasm will keep a significant number of the 75 percent at home on election day, even if does not rain.

Bennett Looks for Attention with Appeal to World to Recognize Golan

Monday, June 8th, 2015

Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) chairman Naftali Bennett called on the world to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights in speech to the annual Herzliya Conference on Sunday.

Israel annexed the strategic and water-rich Golan in 1981, but many foreign media articles are preceded with the dateline “Golan Heights, Occupied Territories.”

Bennett’s initiative might be the first small step towards what is going to be an eventual reality. As Syria falls apart, the idea of handing over the Golan to Bashar Al-Assad doesn’t even enter the imagination of Secretary of State John Kerry.

However, Bennett’s call for recognition was welcomed with a resounding thud by foreign media, such as AFP, whose first words in its report were “Far-right Israeli minister.” The description is outlandish, if not libelous, unless the same news agency were to call Labor party chairman Yitzchak Herzog “far-left.”

Bennett said yesterday:

I call on the international community… to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan…. I understand that there is a disagreement on Judaea and Samaria, what the world calls the West Bank. I understand that on this we shall agree to disagree.

But the Golan, to ban agricultural exports from the Golan? Where is the logic, where is your morality? Who would you like us to give the Golan Heights to? To Assad? To Al-Nusra Front? To the Islamic State group? To Hezbollah?

There is a consensus among Israelis that the Golan Heights should remain in Israel. The 20,000 Jews in the Golan Heights make up 50 percent of the population, the other half being Druze, approximately half of whom live in the city of Majdal Shams.

Prime Minister Netanyahu took the air out of Bennett’s Bayit Yehudi party, which in the early stages of the election was polled to win 16 seats in the Knesset. By Election Day, the number was down to 12, the same it had in the previous government.

The day after the election, Netanyahu’s frantic call for Jews to vote had reduced the party’s strength to eight.

Bennett is not making the mistake of previous nationals religious parties to become a party of “Yesha,” the acronym for the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria.

He is trying to shed the party of the stigma that nationalists must be religious. Secular Knesset Member Ayelet Shaked was at the top of the heap in the elections and won the prize of Justice Minister.

Now Bennett needs even broader support in Israel to strengthen his position in the government, and his call on the world to recognize the Golan was more for local consumption than any expectation that the United Nations or even the Obama administration will admit to the truth.

Netanyahu Asks Why UN Does not Condemn Rocket Attacks on Israel

Sunday, June 7th, 2015

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu opened Sunday’s weekly Cabinet meeting with the usual warning that “Israel holds Hamas responsible for all firing from Gaza” but also jabbed the world for remaining silent.

The Prime Minister said:

I have not heard anyone in the international community condemn this firing; neither has the United Nations said a word. It will be interesting if this silence continues when we use our full strength to uphold our right to defend ourselves.

Let it be clear: The spreading hypocrisy in the world will not tie our hands and prevent us from protecting Israel’s citizens. Thus we have acted; thus we will act.

Turning to the BDS movement, Prime Minister Netanyahu noted, “We are in the midst of is establishing an offensive, first of all offensive, but also defensive, network in the face of attempts to boycott the State of Israel and harm the IDF’s right to defend the citizens of the country. As far as those pushing the boycotts are concerned, the settlements in Judea and Samaria are not the focus of the conflict, but our settling in Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Be’er Sheva, Haifa and – of course – Jerusalem.

Netanyahu also had a message for the “peace process” promoters: While we call for a resumption of the diplomatic negotiations, the Palestinians are taking steps against us at the UN and at the international court in The Hague. They shun negotiations and at the same time are also pushing international sanctions and UN Security Council decisions against us because there are no negotiations. They ran from Barak, Sharon and Olmert, they ran from them all, and then they accuse us. Here as well their cynicism knows no bounds, and I regret that there are those who fall into this trap of organized hypocrisy.

Could he possibly be referring to President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry?

 

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/netanyahu-asks-why-un-does-not-condemn-rocket-attacks-on-israel/2015/06/07/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: