web analytics
August 30, 2016 / 26 Av, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Security Council’

The Orlando Massacre

Wednesday, June 15th, 2016

President Obama has long rankled with his preposterous, mantra-like refusal to mention or allow anyone in his administration to mention Islam in the same breath as “terror” or “terrorism.”

He would not even allow the use of the phrase “radical Islam” which, to most, would only signify a possible hijacking of a faith to one’s own use. This, even though terrorist attacks for years have almost invariably been committed by marauders invoking Allah in the course of their murderous rampages.

Mr. Obama’s reason for this has been straightforward: Determined to reset the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world, he was fearful that even tangential linkage as a matter of American policy would thwart that goal by alienating many Muslims. And in that regard, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton stood by him. But in the wake of the Orlando shooting on Sunday at the hands of an American-born Muslim who swore allegiance to Islamic State, that seems to have changed.

Donald Trump reacted to the Orlando shooting by doubling down on his uncompromising, hard-line, theoretical  linkage to terrorism of Muslims generally and some of the teachings of Islam, and by reiterating his call for  restricting their entry into the U.S.

Mrs. Clinton at first echoed President Obama’s paean to diversity and “our values.” She dismissed Mr. Trump’s overall approach and tried to downplay any connection between Islam and the Orlando terror. She reiterated the need for gun control, deplored Mr. Trump’s “inflammatory, anti-Muslim rhetoric,” and said the “murder of innocent people breaks our hearts, tears at our sense of security, and makes us furious.”

And she rhapsodized that “America is strongest when we all believe we have a stake in our country and our future…. Our open, diverse society is an asset in the struggle against terrorism, not a liability.”

But she didn’t even hint at the notion that Islamic terrorism or radical Islam played a role in the Orlando attack.

Mr. Trump responded with a call for President Obama to resign and for Mrs. Clinton to withdraw from the presidential race over their refusal to recognize the Islamic threat to Americans’ safety.

Mrs. Clinton then did a stunning about face, as reflected in her exchange with CNN’s Chris Cuomo:

 

Cuomo: “One of the criticisms in these situations is that President Obama won’t use the words ‘radical Islamic terror.’ That it seems to be either a fear or a protective instinct about blaming the religion. You are now coming under scrutiny about what you will call this, what this means to leadership. Do you believe that this is radical Islamism? Will you use those words, and if not, why?”

Clinton: “Well, first of all, from my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say. And it mattered we got bin Laden, not what name we called him. And I have clearly said that we face terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people. And, you know, whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing; I’m happy to use either.”

 

While there is still a trace of diplomatic gobbledygook, it seems clear that, under pressure from Mr. Trump,  Mrs. Clinton has broken from President Obama on a singular theme of his administration. Time will tell whether she will be as vulnerable to future Trump verbal barrages respecting other controversial positions the leader of her party has espoused. If nothing else, she has signaled a recognition that events may force her hand.

 

The Sarona Attack

As soon as the dust settled on the Palestinian terrorist attack on Tel Aviv’s Sarona café last week in which four Israelis were killed and many more wounded, Israel announced several immediate countermeasures –which included refusing to send the bodies of the terrorists to their families, imposing travel restrictions on Palestinians, and deploying thousands of troops in the West Bank.

Editorial Board

State Dept. Press Briefing Gets Close to Supporting UNSC 2-State Resolution [video]

Friday, April 15th, 2016

State Dept. Spokesperson John Kirby’s daily press briefing on Thursday touched on the ominous possibility that the Obama Administration will wait until after the November election, so as not to steer Jewish votes away from the Democratic candidate, and then, in a final splash of power, just before going down from the world’s stage, blow up a landmine in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s face and support or fail to veto a UN Security Council resolution creating a Palestinian State and ordering the hasty removal of all Jewish presence on the “wrong” side of the 1967 border.

We redacted and edited the exchange to make it a tad more entertaining. But one can smell the danger hidden in the spokesman’s evasions. Barring divine intervention, the Obama gang is planning to install a Palestinian State and create facts on the ground so that the next Democrat in the White House will have to start from that point, rather than with today’s murky uncertainty.

We join the conversation that’s already in progress…

Reporter: On Security Council resolutions – will you consider either supporting or failing to veto a resolution on settlement activity in the West Bank?

Kirby: …We are very concerned about trends on the ground and we do have a sense of urgency about the two-state solution. We will consider all of our options for advancing our shared objective of lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but I’m not going to comment on a draft Security Council resolution. Okay?

Reporter: What does that mean, we do have a sense of urgency for a two-state solution?

Kirby: It means exactly what it says and what I’ve been saying from the podium here for months and months and months.

Reporter: So you see a sense of urgency to get to a two-state solution?

Kirby: Sure we do. We very much would like to see a two-state solution realized, yes.

Reporter: I don’t understand.

Kirby: I don’t know what’s not to understand about “we have a sense of urgency.”

Reporter: Well, because there’s only, like, eight months left of the Administration. … You had a sense of urgency back in 2009; you had a sense of urgency when Secretary Kerry took over in 2012.

Kirby: So as time gets shorter, we shouldn’t have a sense of urgency?

Reporter: But if you had a real sense of urgency, you would’ve done something already, right?

Kirby: We have consistently had a sense of urgency.

Reporter: Does that mean, when you say you have a sense or urgency about this, that you’re going to try to cram something in that results in a two-state solution by the end of this Administration?

Kirby: I’m not going to hypothesize on future actions, whatever we continue to do or continue to consider, I don’t know that I would say it’s about cramming. It is about trying to move forward in a productive way towards a two-state solution. And as I’ve said before, we also look to the sides to enact the right kind of leadership to get us there, because ultimately it has to be done by them.

Reporter: But you’re not automatically opposed to a UN Security Council resolution that would call for a two-state solution?

Kirby: We’re not going to comment on this informal draft resolution.

Reporter: I’m not asking you to comment on this informal one. I’m saying that if a resolution presented itself that was evenhanded, in your view – not one-sided or biased against Israel – that called for an end of settlements, called for an end of incitement, and also called for the creation of two states, would you automatically oppose?

Kirby: Well, without getting into those provisions that you listed out there and making a judgment about that, I’d go back to what I said before, and that’s we will consider all of our options for advancing a shared objective, a two-state solution.

Reporter: And that would include a resolution?

Kirby: We’ll consider all options to advance a two-state solution.

Reporter: When you spoke of urgency, did you mean that the urgency comes from the possibility that the two states [solution will go] beyond reach?

Kirby: A sense of urgency about the importance of getting to a two-state solution, which has been a consistent point that we’ve made.

Reporter: But there’s a difference between consistency and urgency.

Kirby: What’s the difference?

Reporter: Well, if it’s always urgent, then it’s never more urgent than before.

Kirby: Well, I don’t know that I’d agree with that. Sometimes something can be always urgent and consistently urgent —

Reporter: You sound like a Foreigner song. (Laughter.) … There’s a song called Urgent. Maybe you’re too young to remember —

Kirby: No, I remember that. (Laughter). I know – I remember the song. I didn’t like it.

For the record, here’s the refrain from Foreigner’s memorable ending to Urgent:

“It gets so urgent / So urgent / You know it’s urgent / I wanna tell you it’s the same for me / So oh oh urgent / Just you wait and see / How urgent our love can be / It’s urgent.

“You say it’s urgent / Make it fast, make it urgent / Do it quick, do it urgent / Gotta rush, make it urgent / Want it quick / Urgent, urgent, emergency / Urgent, urgent, emergency / Urgent, urgent, emergency / Urgent, urgent, emergency / So urgent, emergency / Emer… emer… emer… / It’s urgent.”

Reporter: There are those within the President’s party, certainly the former Secretary of State, that say that simply the venue itself is not the place to impose a solution from without. I just want to be clear that you think that, because you’re considering all of your options, you may consider the UN Security Council to be the venue to impose —

Kirby: I don’t – I’m not going to elaborate on my answer to you. I think I’d point you back to what I said before.

Reporter: Let me just follow up on this just for a second, okay? I mean, seeing how time after time you call on the Israelis to refrain from settlement activities, to cease settlement activities, you call them illegal and so on, but in fact they don’t really listen much to what you have to say. So in that case, in that situation, why not have a forum in the United Nations where the world can collectively come up with some sort of a resolution that they all agree on, which is the cessation of settlement activities? Why would you be opposed to that? Why can’t you say that you would support this at the United Nations?

Kirby: Again, I’m going to point you back to my original answer, which made it clear we’re not going to comment on a draft resolution that’s only been informally presented in New York, and that, as I said, we’ll consider all of our options to try to get to a two-state solution. So I think I’m just not going to go any further than that, Said. I know that’s not satisfying for you, but that’s really where we are right now.

(The conversation we refer to starts around min. 43:50)

JNi.Media

Israel Says ‘Thanks But No Thanks’ on Plan to Internationalize Temple Mount

Sunday, October 18th, 2015

Israel has rejected out of hand a draft proposal by France to internationalize the Temple Mount.

The plan was suggested on Friday to the Security Council by French ambassador to the United Nations Francois Delattre, supposedly intended to help cool off the violence at the site.

On Sunday (Oct. 18), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting that Israel “cannot accept” the draft resolution at the UN Security Council.

“It doesn’t mention Palestinian incitement; it doesn’t mention Palestinian terrorism; and it calls for the internationalization of the Temple Mount,” Netanyahu pointed out.

Even burka-clad Muslim women — and even children — join in with the harassment of visitors to the site, screaming “Allahu Akbar!” from just a few inches away as Jews and other non-Muslims tour the Temple Mount grounds. Even with a police escort, the vicious abuse is allowed to continue unabated until either the touring Jews are cowed into abandoning the tour or one of the verbal attackers loses enough control that they make a physical move against the visitors. This offers a legal excuse for Israeli police to block the group, thereby affording the tourists a few moments of respite.

“We’ve seen across the Middle East – in Palmyra, in Iraq, throughout Iraq and elsewhere how the militant Muslims blast each other’s mosques to the sky. We’ve just seen it in a Jewish holy site, Joseph’s Tomb,” Netanyahu said, referring to the latest torching of the tomb of the Biblical patriarch Joseph.

“Only Israel, Israel alone, is the guarantor of the holy sites on the Temple Mount,” he noted, adding that it is not Israel that has made any changes to the status quo at the Temple Mount – the most recent excuse used by Palestinian Arabs to ignite the current wave of terrorism.

“We didn’t change anything,” Netanyahu said. “The orders of prayer, the visiting rights have not changed for the last 15 years. The only thing that’s changed are Islamist hoodlums paid by the Islamist Movement in Israel and by Hamas, who are entering the mosque and try to put explosives [in the building] and from there emerge and attack Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount, and Christian visitors. That’s the only change in the status quo.”

Netanyahu reiterated that Israel has not changed the status quo, nor does it intend to change the status quo. However, he said, “Israel will protect the holy sites, and will guard the status quo.

“Israel is not the problem on the Temple Mount,” he said. “Israel is the solution.”

Hana Levi Julian

Saudi Arabia Warns of ‘Religious War’ Over Temple Mount Clashes

Thursday, September 17th, 2015

Saudi Arabian King Salman has turned to the United Nations seeking “urgent measures” to stop what he called Israel’s “violations” on the Temple Mount, warning of a possible “religious war” if the violence at the site is not stopped.

Of course, the violence and provocations are started and perpetuated by Palestinian Arab Muslims, each and every time — but somehow that salient fact is disregarded by every single foreign party to the discussion.

Moreover, the so-called “violations” referred to by the king have consisted of measures enforcing the status quo that allows the presence of Jewish and other visitors in the Temple Mount compound for a number of hours each day. No one other than Muslims have ever been allowed to enter the Al Aqsa Mosque.

That changed this week, however, when it became clear that “worshipers” were in fact combatants stockpiling rocks, bottles, firebombs and firecrackers inside the mosque to use as weapons against police and Jewish visitors during the morning hours.

On Wednesday, police entered the mosque after receiving concrete intelligence about the weapons cache, and indeed found what they sought, after a battle with the “worshipers.”

A similar operation had taken place earlier in the week before the start of the Rosh Hashana holiday, when Israeli police seized pipe bombs stockpiled inside the mosque with rocks and other weapons.

The Arabs had started to hurl their projectiles at the Mughrabi Gate, where non-Muslims enter the Temple Mount, prompting police to enter the site and also to search for the weapons cache.

Ignoring all of these religious violations of their own holy sanctuary by the so-called “worshipers,” however, King Salman instead expressed “strong condemnation of the dangerous Israeli escalation” at the site, the Saudi Press Agency reported.

The king “called for serious and speedy international efforts and for the intervention of the Security Council to take all urgent measures to stop these violations,” the news agency said.

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas also added a few words, telling eastern Jerusalem activists this week at a meeting in Ramallah, “Al Aqsa is ours, the Holy Sepulcher is also ours. They have no right to dirty the mosque with their filthy feet, we won’t let them do it.”

And instead of pouring oil on the troubled waters, Jordanian monarch King Abdullah II has simply added more fuel to the fire despite maintaining a peace treaty with Israel, that gives Amman custodianship rights over Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem since 1994.

The Hashemite monarch warned Tuesday in a statement that “any more provocations in Jerusalem will affect the relationship between Jordan and Israel, and Jordan will have no choice but to take action.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has consistently maintained the country has no interest in changing the status quo. This also includes, however, the rights of Jews and other non-Muslims to visit the site regardless of Muslim opposition to their presence.

Israel Police arrested eight Palestinian Arabs on Thursday, including six minors, all of whom were suspects involved in recent clashes with security forces.

Since the start of this week, at least 14 Israel Police officers have been injured by violent Arabs hurling rocks and firecrackers at them.

At least 36 Palestinian Arabs have been arrested in riots so far this week as well.

Salman complained that the “attack on worshipers” violates the sanctity of faith and “contributes to feeding extremism and violence in the world,” SPA reported, adding that the king said much the same in phone calls to the leaders of Russia, the UK and France.

Hana Levi Julian

ISIS Executes 19 Women and Girls for Refusing ‘Sexual Jihad’

Thursday, August 6th, 2015

Nineteen girls and women were executed in Iraq over the weekend by Da’esh (ISIS) for refusing to participate in “sexual jihad” with terrorists in Mosul, Iraq.

The execution was reported Monday by Said Mimousini, a spokesman for the Kurdish Democratic Party in Mosul in an interview with Iraqi News.

Many Yazidi and Christian girls and women were captured by the terrorists last year and sold as sex slaves. But the practice may also prove the undoing of the group: Mimousini said there have been splits in the ranks in Mosul and internal conflicts over money and the distribution of women.

Girls who have somehow managed to escape the clutches of Da’esh have told media of how they were forced to marry ISIS fighters, and how they were physically and sexually abused.

As many as 3,000 women and girls having been taken captive from the Yazidi tribe in Iraq alone. In addition, Da’esh has captured and enslaved numerous other minorities in the territories it has seized.

Last October, ISIS published a brochure showing the prices for the purchase of female slaves.

The price tariff is simple; the older they are the cheaper they are, RT Novosti reported. “All prices are quoted in Iraqi Dinars but U.S. dollar equivalent shows that radical fighters can get children aged 1 to 9 for about $165, prices for adolescent girls are $124 and it’s less for women over 20. Women over 40 cost as little as $41.”

Last year Da’esh also produced a manual containing rules about how female slaves, women and children should be treated by its fighters.

During this past Ramadan, the group launched a contest to encourage its fighters and followers to memorize Qur’an passages, using young girls as prizes for the top winners.

Zainab Bangura, a United Nations envoy for sexual violence in conflict, is investigating the group’s sex trade. Bangura said “girls are peddled like barrels of petrol,” according to the UK-based Daily Mail, adding that “one can be bought by six different men.”

There is even a marriage bureau which organizes all of these ‘marriages’ and the sale of women, Bangura said.

However, occasionally ISIS will also sell the girls back to their families as well. “Sometimes these fighters sell the girls back to their families for thousands of dollars of ransom,” Bangura said. Valerie Amos, UN undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief, added that women and girls as young as 12 are enslaved and sexually abused.

“Kurdish refugees from Kobane report the capture of young girls there for sexual purposes, girls as young as 12,” she said.

Amos added there has also been a rise in the incidence of forced marriage, due in part to the rise in family poverty.

More to the point, however, families are terrified of losing their daughters to ISIS fighters in areas under their control – a phenomenon she called a “war crime.”

“ISIS has carried out mass victimization of civilians including murder, enslavement, rape, forcible displacement and torture, and has violated its obligation towards civilians,” Amos said.

She was particularly damning of the sluggish response of the international community to enforcing Security Council Resolution 2139 which passed in February of this year. The resolution outlined a number of basic human rights demands that opposition fighters and the Syrian government are required to follow.

Obviously, no one has paid any attention to the resolution since its passage.

Hana Levi Julian

Ex-Amb. Michael Oren Says Obama ‘Deliberately Abandoned Israel’

Tuesday, June 16th, 2015

Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the United States and now a Knesset Member with the Kulanu party, wrote Tuesday that President Barack Obama “deliberately” abandoned a 40-year core policy regarding Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Oren stated that President Obama is a “friend” of Israel but nevertheless maintained that while anyone can make a mistake, President Obama did so on purpose.

In his words:

Only one leader made them deliberately. Obama promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran.

It took Oren six years to respond and correct part of President Obama’s “Reaching Out to Muslims” speech in Cairo, in which he said, “When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility with the Arabs.”

Oren, who still is a champion of the “peace process,” sounded like a Netanyahu sympathizer in part of his op-ed, writing that President Obama ignored Israel’s withdrawal of all Israeli soldiers and the expulsion of 9,000 Jews from Gaza in 2005. Obama also ignored several major concessions to the Palestinian Authority, including one that offered it almost all of Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem.

President Obama said in his speech that Israel should freeze all building for Jews in “settlements,” to which Oren finally wrote in his article:

Israeli leaders typically received advance copies of major American policy statements on the Middle East and could submit their comments. But Mr. Obama delivered his Cairo speech, with its unprecedented support for the Palestinians and its recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear power, without consulting Israel.

The Bush administration had committed itself to writing in a letter to then-Prime Ariel Sharon that large population centers, such as Maaleh Adumim and Gush Etzion, would remain under Israeli sovereignty in a future Palestinian Authority state.

Obama abandoned that policy and insisted that the promise by Bush was an “unofficial” and non-binding letter. In Oren’s words:

Mr. Obama also voided President George W. Bush’s commitment to include the major settlement blocs and Jewish Jerusalem within Israel’s borders in any peace agreement. Instead, he insisted on a total freeze of Israeli construction in those areas —’not a single brick.’

It was clear from that time that the Obama was working behind the scenes, and sometimes up front, on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and against Israel.

Oren came out of the closet in his op-ed today and charged that President Obama never asked for any concession from the Palestinian Authority despite the fact the Mahmoud Abbas “violated all of his commitments.”

The United States so far has publicly opposed a Palestinian Authority effort in the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel for a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria and to vote the Palestinian Authority into the United Nations as a permanent member.

However, the Obama administration has made open statements that it does not know how much longer it wants to use its veto power in the Security Council on behalf of Israel.

President Obama abandoned a four-decade U.S. policy in May 2011 and stated that a future agreement with the Palestinian Authority should be based on the borders drawn under the 1949 Temporary Armistice Agreement, which lasted until the Six-Day War in 1967.

Oren wrote:

If Mr. Netanyahu appeared to lecture the president the following day, it was because he had been assured by the White House, through me, that no such change would happen.

He also wrote that the Obama administration “stunned” Israel by offering to support a Security Council investigation of settlements and by backing Turkish and Egyptian maneuvers to force Israel to come clean on its nuclear capability.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

‘Obama Invited Netanyahu For a Visit after Iran Deal to be Signed’

Tuesday, June 16th, 2015

President Barack Obama has invited Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for a “working visit” to the White House two weeks after a deal with Iran is to be signed but before Congress will decide whether or not to ratify it, State Dept. sources told Yediot Achronot.

The office of the Prime Minister made no comment, and time will tell if the White House is telling the truth by denying the report.

The visit is supposed to take place on July 15 or 16, according to the Israeli newspaper.

The timing makes perfect sense for President Obama, whose mastery as a manipulator cannot be matched by anyone except Prime Minister Netanyahu, which probably explains their war-like relationship.

If the report is correct, and it probably is, it means that President Obama is confident that the talks with Iran over its nuclear program will be over before then. Obama has set a deadline of June 30 for a deal, but if history is a guide, it likely will be extended by one or even a few days.

If there is no deal, then Obama can welcome Netanyahu and say, “See, I told you that you could count on me not to make a “bad deal.”

If there is a deal, Congress has 30 days to have its say, and Netanyahu would not have such an easy time denouncing the deal in the White House as he did in Congress last March. The Prime Minister would have to face the cameras as President Obama expounds on how much he has done for Israel while promising he will never, never, never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon or do anything that would endanger Israel.

President Obama also would offer Israel large bribes of military aid in exchange for its buying the deal.

If Netanyahu were to speak out against it without being 100 percent sure of being able to prove it endangers Israel’s security, which is difficult because it means proving an hypothesis, he would have to do as he sits next to the President in the Oval Office, with the cameras capturing every body gesture and word.

Americans’ overblown patriotism does not suffer a foreign official publicly telling their president he is wrong Netanyahu would risk losing American support for Israel against the Palestinian Authority campaign for backing in the United Nations and International Criminal Court.

Obama could refrain from vetoing a Security Council vote to make the Palestinian Authority a full member of the United Nations, thereby giving it de facto recognition of its definition of Israel’s borders.

Obama may or not have led one of the United States’ most disastrous foreign policies, but he has done so by masterfully putting everyone else in their place.

Netanyahu is an excellent chess player, but he might be checked when playing on Obama’s board.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/obama-invited-netanyahu-for-a-visit-after-iran-deal-to-be-signed/2015/06/16/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: