++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You can tell more about a person by what they do than by what they say.
In Obama's case this is as true as night follows day.
In his remaining days, after telling Trump he would do everything he and his administration could to make it a smooth transition, he is doing everything he can to box his successor in and to stick it to Israel, which he did today.
Jimmy Carter had /has a vindictive streak a mile long but Obama goes far beyond. What a pathetic liar and he talks about Trump's temperament. (See 1, 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d)
+++
What kind of temperament can a man have to vacation while hundred of thousands of refugees flee a city he failed to defend and which defines how far America has declined as a nation? (See 2 below.)
Trump did more for Israel, tweeting, diplomatically speaking, yesterday than Obama has in eight years. However, after four decades Obama dumped on Israel today as America abstained from vetoing the U.N. resolution regarding settlements.
Obama's foreign policy approach is a simple one - when policy fails, play golf and then distort and lie about the results! (See 3 and 3a below.)
+++
By the time Trump enters The Oval Office, it should be evident, even to him, Obama never intended to be co-operative. Obama has always proven to be two faced. (See 4 below)
It is time for Trump to join with Sen. Graham and reduce, if not eliminate, funding to The Palestinians and The U.N. Abbas is corrupt as were his predecessors and the U.N has proven worthless . Our tax dollars are wasted in funding both.
Syria destroys homes of its citizens and not a peep from the U.N . Israel builds home for its citizens and The U.N censures Israel and Obama concurs. Pathetic!
+++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Israel and the rising new West
US President Barack Obama has but a month left in office. But he has a month left. And he is using it. In the days remaining, Obama is using the full authority of his office to advance his policies with the hope of rendering permanent his mark on American policy.
Domestically, Obama is working to undercut the capacity of his successor, President-elect Donald Trump, to implement his plans of expanding domestic oil and gas exploration and development.
On Tuesday, Obama banned offshore drilling in large swathes of the Artic and Atlantic oceans.
In foreign affairs, Obama has Israel in his crosshairs.
It is now apparent that the lame duck president, bereft of any partisan restraints, intends to make good on his eight years of promises to use his last month in office to stick it to Israel at the UN.
The opening act of Obama’s onslaught on Israel came on Wednesday, with State Department Spokesman John Kirby’s fatuous and unprecedented claim that Israeli communities built beyond the 1949 armistice line – the so-called settlements – are illegal.
Late Wednesday, the UN suddenly announced it would hold a vote on an Egyptian resolution parroting that language, and calling for a complete halt on construction projects for Jews in the areas, including Jerusalem.
The draft resolution included a call for an international governmental embrace of economic warfare against Israel. It called upon member states “to distinguish in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”
An indication of the depth of Obama’s commitment to enabling the resolution to pass came amid reports that Secretary of State John Kerry was planning to address the Security Council ahead of the scheduled vote.
In any event, following massive pressure from Israel and a statement by President-elect Donald Trump calling for Obama to veto the resolution, Egypt postponed the vote on its resolution “indefinitely.”
In any event, following massive pressure from Israel and a statement by President-elect Donald Trump calling for Obama to veto the resolution, Egypt postponed the vote on its resolution “indefinitely.”
But with or without the resolution – and there are at least two others also poised for a vote – Obama is using his remaining time to empower the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions operation aimed at destroying Israel’s economy and international position.
As Anne Bayevsky reported in the Washington Examiner on Wednesday, Obama is supporting the UN budget which allocates funding toward the implementation of a UN Human Rights Council resolution promoting BDS. The resolution requires the Human Rights Council to compile a blacklist of companies worldwide with direct or indirect business ties to Israeli communities built beyond the 1949 armistice lines. Since all businesses doing business with Israeli entities have indirect or direct ties to the areas where some 750,000 Israeli live, the resolution represents a bid to conduct total war against the Israeli economy.
And Obama is funding its implementation.
Moreover, Obama is trying to box the Trump administration into continuing his supportive stance on the Human Rights Council. Whereas the Bush administration refused to join the inherently and incurably anti-Israel body, Obama has lavished it with legitimacy and funding.
This month the administration won a new three-year term for the US on the council beginning on January 1. This means that regardless of Trump’s approach to the phony human rights body, the US is now saddled with membership for the bulk of his presidential term.
One of the things operating in Israel’s favor as it seeks to undo Obama’s hostile legacy once he is gone, is that Trump’s election is part and parcel of a wide-scale change in Western politics that is fundamentally transforming the so-called “international community” that provides knee-jerk support for BDS and every other anti-Israel initiative.
The term “international community,” of course, is just a grandiose name for the collective views of the Western European elites and those of their counterparts on the US coasts. And as Trump’s victory and the British decision to withdraw from the European Union indicated, the elites’ capacity to impose their views on voters is fast disappearing.
The populist wave that approved Brexit and brought Trump to power is far from spent force. Next year will see general elections in Holland, France and Germany, and nationalist parties in all three countries are likely to win or at a minimum be profoundly strengthened. This means that the likelihood the EU will break apart is rising with each passing day. And the foreign policies of the separate states of Europe will be far different than their collective positions under the EU.
The main cause of the swift rise of the nationalist Right throughout Western Europe is the mass Muslim migration to Europe. Profound public opposition to the deluge of migrants from Muslim states is bringing about wholesale popular rejection of the multicultural and anti-nationalist values that dictated the tone and substance of European politics for two generations. The implications of this revolutionary shift in values and its impact on European politics are enormous. And Israel stands to be one of the first beneficiaries of this transformation, if our foreign policy bureaucracy is capable of understanding what is happening.
Unfortunately, actions by the Foreign Ministry this week indicate that our diplomatic bureaucrats haven’t the vaguest idea of what is happening, or why these developments can be beneficial for Israel.
The Foreign Ministry announced this week that the government was boycotting a delegation of visiting European lawmakers because Kristina Winberg, a member of Sweden’s rightist Swedish Democrats party, was among its members.
In recent weeks, the Foreign Ministry has managed to boycott Sweden’s entire political spectrum. Last week, the ministry announced that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had rejected Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom’s request for a meeting due to scheduling difficulties.
Wallstrom richly deserves the government’s unofficial boycott. Among other things, Wallstrom blamed Israel for the massacres in Paris last November.
While the Foreign Ministry used a procedural excuse to brush off Wallstrom, it threw diplomatic protocol to the seven winds when it announced that Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely’s scheduled briefing of the delegation of European lawmakers was canceled due to Winberg’s participation.
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said that the Swedish Democrats party “has neo-Nazi tendencies, and therefore the Foreign Ministry decided not to include [Winberg] in the meeting with Hotovely.”
Winberg’s colleagues, who included a member of Trump’s transition team, were appalled by the boycott. To protest the move, the entire delegation canceled its meeting with Hotovely.
The delegation was in Israel to participate in a leadership summit in Jerusalem. Due to its position on the Sweden Democrats, the Foreign Ministry caused Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked to cancel her scheduled remarks at the conference.
In other words, the Foreign Ministry adopted and implemented a comprehensive, public and undiplomatic boycott of the rightist party.
In other words, the Foreign Ministry adopted and implemented a comprehensive, public and undiplomatic boycott of the rightist party.
It is unclear who stands behind this policy. But whoever is responsible should be subjected to a career review. The policy is as destructive to Israel’s national interests as it is unjust to the Swedish Democrats.
The Swedish Democrats party is the only pro-Israel political party in Sweden. It is the only party that opposed Sweden’s recognition of “Palestine.”
The Swedish Democrats party is the only pro-Israel political party in Sweden. It is the only party that opposed Sweden’s recognition of “Palestine.”
The Foreign Ministry’s claim that the party has “neo-Nazi tendencies” is tendentious. Earlier this month, the party took the extreme step of banning one of its own lawmakers from the party after she made an antisemitic statement. In the past it disbanded its youth wing and formed a new one amidst allegations of antisemitism.
How many Nazi parties expel their members or disband their youth wings for hating Jews? The Swedish Democrats party, which is identified with the nationalist right, has built is political position around its unqualified opposition to immigration. For its opposition to immigration, the Democrats are castigated continuously as racists by their political rivals.
There is every reason to believe there are Jew-haters among the party’s members. But unlike members of Wallstrom’s Social Democratic Party, Swedish Democrats don’t participate in anti-Israel demonstrations where Hezbollah and Hamas flags are prominent. Indeed, they don’t participate in anti-Israel demonstrations at all.
Moreover, they are the fastest growing and largest party in Sweden. This fact makes the Foreign Ministry’s treatment of Winberg not only unjust, but deeply stupid as well. A mere decade after it won its first representation in parliament, the Swedish Democrats have been leading political polls for the past year. And the Foreign Ministry just called it a Nazi party.
Sadly, it isn’t much of a surprise that the Foreign Ministry has failed to read the writing on the walls in Sweden and act appropriately. Our foreign and defense bureaucracies have a storied record of missing major developments. They are too busy talking to their bureaucratic counterparts to pay attention to what the public is saying.
In Egypt for instance, no one was more surprised at then-president Hosni Mubarak’s overthrow and the concomitant rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt than the defense establishment, whose members were largely responsible for handling Israel’s bilateral relations with Mubarak.
In the decade or more that preceded Mubarak’s overthrow, anyone paying attention to open source polling data of public opinion in Egypt, or to what was being said in the Egyptian media, was aware of the deep-seated and rising public frustration and disgust with Mubarak, his sons and his cronies. But since the only people that Israel’s defense establishment spoke to were Mubarak, his sons and his cronies, they were taken by complete surprise when he was overthrown and replaced with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama will continue to be the president until 12:00 p.m. on January 20. And Israel can expect him to use this time to take the actions against Israel that he has been threatening to take for eight years. One way or another, he will exact his pound of flesh.
But at 12:01 on January 20, a new era will begin.
And in the coming months, as the next wave of populist right-wing parties rise to power in Europe, the “international community” that has been unanimous in its backing of the anti-Israel policies for a generation will become an altogether different body.
This new era presents Israel with profound, indeed unprecedented opportunities. But if our foreign and defense bureaucrats continue to behave as though nothing has happened, we will fail to benefit from any of them.
https://goo.gl/Fctj4q
1a)
1a)
Can Trump Stop Obama at the UN?
That’s why Trump’s challenge to Obama this morning, in which he blasted
the proposed resolution as “deeply unfair” to Israel and demanded that it
be vetoed, may have had as much impact on today’s postponement and
the chances of reviving the effort as any message Netanyahu may have
sent to the Egyptians.
the proposed resolution as “deeply unfair” to Israel and demanded that it
be vetoed, may have had as much impact on today’s postponement and
the chances of reviving the effort as any message Netanyahu may have
sent to the Egyptians.
That puts the outgoing and incoming administrations on a collision course.
In this case, Trump is right and Obama is dead wrong. The Palestinians’
attempt to use the power of the UN to attack Israel is a distraction from
peace efforts, not a help to them. The only path to peace must come via
direct negotiations between the two parties. Trump may be no policy
genius but, unlike Obama and many of Israel’s foreign critics, he seems to
be aware of the fact that the Palestinians have rejected repeated offers of
statehood from Israel including ones that would have given them almost
all of the West Bank and a share of Jerusalem.
attempt to use the power of the UN to attack Israel is a distraction from
peace efforts, not a help to them. The only path to peace must come via
direct negotiations between the two parties. Trump may be no policy
genius but, unlike Obama and many of Israel’s foreign critics, he seems to
be aware of the fact that the Palestinians have rejected repeated offers of
statehood from Israel including ones that would have given them almost
all of the West Bank and a share of Jerusalem.
While he may still entertain unrealistic hopes of brokering the real-estate
deal of the century that would mark peace between the two sides, Trump
seems to understand that the obstacle to peace isn’t the building of a few
homes in parts of Jerusalem or the West Bank that Israel would retain in
any peace deal. It is, rather, the Palestinian refusal to make peace. The
resolution’s passage would reward Palestinian intransigence and remove
any incentive for them to make the concessions needed for an agreement.
Worse than that, it might inject new life into the BDS movement that seeks
to isolate and wage economic warfare on Israel.
deal of the century that would mark peace between the two sides, Trump
seems to understand that the obstacle to peace isn’t the building of a few
homes in parts of Jerusalem or the West Bank that Israel would retain in
any peace deal. It is, rather, the Palestinian refusal to make peace. The
resolution’s passage would reward Palestinian intransigence and remove
any incentive for them to make the concessions needed for an agreement.
Worse than that, it might inject new life into the BDS movement that seeks
to isolate and wage economic warfare on Israel.
Trump may not be able to undo a UNSC resolution unilaterally once he
takes office. But it will give him added incentive to make gestures that show the world that the United States still has Israel’s back, such as a move of the
U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Moreover, as Eugene Kontorovich writes in the Washington Post, he could also order the State Department to reverse
its stand on the legality of settlements—a position that would outrage the
foreign-policy establishment and put the U.S. at odds with its allies but
would also be rooted in justice and history. That would be a powerful
statement to the Palestinians that their efforts to isolate Israel have failed
and that if they truly want a two-state solution they must come back to the
table and forget about the UN.
takes office. But it will give him added incentive to make gestures that show the world that the United States still has Israel’s back, such as a move of the
U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Moreover, as Eugene Kontorovich writes in the Washington Post, he could also order the State Department to reverse
its stand on the legality of settlements—a position that would outrage the
foreign-policy establishment and put the U.S. at odds with its allies but
would also be rooted in justice and history. That would be a powerful
statement to the Palestinians that their efforts to isolate Israel have failed
and that if they truly want a two-state solution they must come back to the
table and forget about the UN.
Whatever else he has accomplished here, Trump has given Obama
reason to pause before he goes ahead with an abstention rather than a
veto at the UN. Though the president may still long to impose a diktat on
Israel about borders and settlements that would undermine its negotiating
position and encourage the Palestinians to be even more intransigent,
Obama may now understand that such a petulant gesture may only make
it more likely that Trump will double down on a shift to a more pro-Israel
policy that will essentially erase everything the president has tried to do on
the issue in the last eight years.
1b)
reason to pause before he goes ahead with an abstention rather than a
veto at the UN. Though the president may still long to impose a diktat on
Israel about borders and settlements that would undermine its negotiating
position and encourage the Palestinians to be even more intransigent,
Obama may now understand that such a petulant gesture may only make
it more likely that Trump will double down on a shift to a more pro-Israel
policy that will essentially erase everything the president has tried to do on
the issue in the last eight years.
1b)
Obama’s Midnight Regulation Express
The goal is to issue more rules than the new administration could ever
repeal.
At a White House press conference, Dec. 16. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
512 COMMENTS
Barack Obama isn’t known for humility, though rarely has his lack of grace been more on
display than in his final hours in office. The nation rejected his agenda. The president’s
response? To shove more of that agenda down the nation’s gullet.
Notice the growing and many ugly ways the Obama administration is actively working to
undermine a Donald Trump presidency. Unnamed administration sources whisper stories
about Russian hackers to delegitimize Mr. Trump’s election. These whispers began at
about the same time Hillary Clinton officials began pressuring electors to defy election
results and deny Mr. Trump the presidency. How helpful.
Trump transition-team members report how Obama officials are providing them with
skewed or incomplete information, as well as lectures about their duties on climate
change. (No wonder Mr. Trump is bypassing those “official” intelligence briefings.) The
Energy Department is refusing to provide the transition team with the names of career
officials who led key programs, like those who attended U.N. climate talks. Sen. Ron
Johnson recently sent a letter to President Obama voicing alarm over “burrowing,” in
which political appointees, late in an administration, convert to career bureaucrats and
become obstacles to the new political appointees.
But perhaps nothing has more underlined the Obama arrogance than his final flurry of
midnight regulations. With each new proposed rule or executive order, Mr. Obama is
spitefully mocking the nation that just told him “enough.”
The technical definition of a midnight regulation is one issued between Election Day and
the inauguration of a new president. The practice is bipartisan. George W. Bush, despite
having promised not to do so, pushed through a fair number of rules in his final months.
But Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were more aggressive, and Mr. Obama is making
them look like pikers.
Mr. Obama has devoted his last year to ramming through controversial and far-reaching
rules. Whether it was born of a desire to lay groundwork for a Clinton presidency, or as
a guard against a Trump White House, the motive makes no difference. According to a
Politico story of nearly a year ago, the administration had some 4,000 regulations in the
works for Mr. Obama’s last year. They included smaller rules on workplace hazards, gun
sellers, nutrition labels and energy efficiency, as well as giant regulations (costing
billions) on retirement advice and overtime pay.
Since the election Mr. Obama has broken with all precedent by issuing rules that would
be astonishing at any moment and are downright obnoxious at this point. This past week
we learned of several sweeping new rules from the Interior Department and the
Environmental Protection Agency, including regs on methane on public lands (cost:
$2.4 billion); a new anti-coal rule related to streams ($1.2 billion) and renewable fuel
standards ($1.5 billion).
This follows Mr. Obama’s extraordinary announcement that he will invoke a dusty old
law to place nearly all of the Arctic Ocean, and much of the Atlantic Ocean, off limits to
oil or gas drilling. This follows his highly politicized move to shut down the Dakota
Access pipeline in North Dakota. And it comes amid reports the administration is rushing
to implement last-minute rules on commodities speculation, immigrant workers and for-
profit colleges—among others.
Any action that is rushed is likely to be shoddy, especially if it’s from the federal
government. The point is for Mr. Obama to have his way and to swamp the Trump
administration with a dizzying array of new rules to have to undo. That diverts manpower from bigger and better priorities.
President Obama is hoping this work will prove too much and his rules will stand. He’d
be making a good bet. George W. Bush promised to undo last-minute Clinton regulations. Yet a paper done in 2005 by Jason M. Loring and Liam R. Roth in Wake Forest Law Review found that a
whopping 82% were left to stand.
Then again, a Republican Congress seems ready and willing to invoke the Congressional
Review Act, which allows legislators to reject rule-making. More important, Mr. Trump
and his team seem to understand that Americans are angry at Mr. Obama’s tendency to
rule like an autocrat. They also surely know how damaging many of these Obama parting
gifts (particularly energy rules) will prove to their own agenda.
A Trump administration could send a powerful message to future presidents and build
public support by highlighting the “midnight regulation” phenomenon and then making
it a priority to ax every final Obama order. Single them out. Make a public list. Celebrate
every repeal. That would be as profound a rebuke to the Obama legacy—a legacy based
on abuse of power—as any other.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
1c) Israel slams Obama over UN vote
By Associated Press
JERUSALEM — An Israeli official on Friday accused President Barack Obama of colluding with
1c) Israel slams Obama over UN vote
By Associated Press
JERUSALEM — An Israeli official on Friday accused President Barack Obama of colluding with
the Palestinians in a “shameful move against Israel at the U.N.” after learning the White House did
not intend to veto a Security Council resolution condemning settlement construction in the West
Bank and east Jerusalem the day before.
“President Obama and Secretary Kerry are behind this shameful move against Israel at the U.N.,”
“President Obama and Secretary Kerry are behind this shameful move against Israel at the U.N.,”
the official said. “The U.S administration secretly cooked up with the Palestinians an extreme anti-
Israeli resolution behind Israel’s back which would be a tail wind for terror and boycotts and
effectively make the Western Wall occupied Palestinian territory,” he said calling it “an
abandonment of Israel which breaks decades of US policy of protecting Israel at the UN.”
Earlier he said Israel’s prime minister turned to President-elect Donald Trump to help head off the
Earlier he said Israel’s prime minister turned to President-elect Donald Trump to help head off the
critical U.N. resolution.
Although the U.S. opposes the settlements, it has traditionally used its veto power as a
Although the U.S. opposes the settlements, it has traditionally used its veto power as a
permanent member of the Security Council to block resolutions condemning Israel, saying that
disputes between Israel and the Palestinians must be resolved through negotiations. But after
eight years of failed peace efforts during the Obama Administration, Israel has expressed concern
the outgoing president would take an audacious step to leave his mark on the region. In recent
weeks, the White House had been especially secretive about its deliberations.
The Israeli official’s admission marked a final chapter in the icy relations between Prime Minister
The Israeli official’s admission marked a final chapter in the icy relations between Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama over the last eight years, and signaled an era
of close ties between Israel and the incoming Trump administration.
The Egyptian-sponsored resolution had demanded that Israel halt settlement activities in occupied
The Egyptian-sponsored resolution had demanded that Israel halt settlement activities in occupied
territories claimed by the Palestinians and declared that existing settlements “have no legal
validity.”
But under heavy Israeli pressure, Egypt called off a planned vote in the Security Council hours
But under heavy Israeli pressure, Egypt called off a planned vote in the Security Council hours
before it was to take place. In the diplomatic activity ahead of the postponement, both Netanyahu
and Trump issued nearly identical statements urging the U.S. to veto the measure.
“After becoming aware that the administration would not veto the anti-Israel resolution, Israeli
“After becoming aware that the administration would not veto the anti-Israel resolution, Israeli
officials reached out to Trump’s transition team to ask for the president-elect’s help to avert the
resolution,” the Israeli official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was
discussing behind-the-scenes diplomatic activity.
On Friday, Egypt said its president had received a call from Trump in which they both agreed to
On Friday, Egypt said its president had received a call from Trump in which they both agreed to
give the incoming U.S. administration a chance to try and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The call came hours after Egypt indefinitely postponed the U.N. vote.
A statement from the Egyptian presidency said the two men spoke by phone early Friday and
A statement from the Egyptian presidency said the two men spoke by phone early Friday and
agreed on “the importance of giving a chance for the new American administration to deal in a
comprehensive way with the different aspects of the Palestinian issue with the aim of achieving a
comprehensive and a final resolution.”
A senior Palestinian official, speaking anonymously according to protocol, said Egypt didn’t
A senior Palestinian official, speaking anonymously according to protocol, said Egypt didn’t
consult with the Palestinians about delaying the vote and it was a “complete shock” for them.
Egypt represents Arab states on the security council.
Egypt is the first Arab country to make peace with Israel, and the two countries have close
Egypt is the first Arab country to make peace with Israel, and the two countries have close
security ties in a shared struggle against Islamic militants.
He said attempts are still underway to bring the resolution to vote after Egypt called it off as there
He said attempts are still underway to bring the resolution to vote after Egypt called it off as there
are still several other sponsors- Venezuela, Malaysia, Senegal and New Zealand – that could
present it.
The U.S., along with the Palestinians and nearly all of the international community, opposes
The U.S., along with the Palestinians and nearly all of the international community, opposes
Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem as obstacles to peace. Some 600,000
Israelis live in the two territories, which the Palestinians seek as part of a future independent
state. Israel captured both areas in the 1967 Mideast war.
Trump has signaled he will be far more sympathetic to Israel. His campaign platform made no
Trump has signaled he will be far more sympathetic to Israel. His campaign platform made no
mention of the establishment of a Palestinian state, a core policy objective of Democratic and
Republican presidents over the past two decades. He also has vowed to move the U.S. Embassy
from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move that would put the U.S. at odds with the Palestinians and
almost the entire remainder of the international community, and his pick for ambassador to Israel,
Jewish-American lawyer David Friedman, is a donor and vocal supporter of the settlements.
The proposed resolution would have been more than symbolic. While it did not call for imposing
The proposed resolution would have been more than symbolic. While it did not call for imposing
sanctions on Israel, its language could have hindered Israel’s negotiating position in future peace
talks. Given the widespread international opposition to the settlements, it would have been nearly
impossible for the Trump administration to reverse it.
It remained unclear Friday whether the measure would come up for a vote in the council before
It remained unclear Friday whether the measure would come up for a vote in the council before
Obama leaves office.
In a Christmas greeting on Friday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said: “Despite the
In a Christmas greeting on Friday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said: “Despite the
Israeli occupation, our presence in our homeland and the preservation of our cultural and national
heritage are the most important form of resistance in the face of the darkness of a foreign
colonialist occupying power.”
dan friedman
[In case you haven’t heard, the UN Security Council vote aimed at making the
Jewish presence illegal in Judea and Samaria is back on for today. Apparently,
Trump’s efforts to have it quashed were not enough. Alas, Hussein is still in the
Oval Office for one more month.
Awhile back I asked if Obama would earn the curse reserved for the worst
enemies of the Jews: yemach shemo, meaning "may his name be erased." It was
touch and go there for sometime but now with absolutely nothing to lose, Barack
Hussein Obama has fully bared his fangs, and he certainly deserves the “honor”
as he’s exposed the deep enmity he harbors for the Jewish people. df]
The U.N. Security Council will vote on Friday on a resolution demanding an end
to Israeli settlements after four council members again put forward the measure
a day after Egypt withdrew it under pressure from Israel and U.S. President-
elect Donald Trump.
New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal, who were co-sponsors of the
draft resolution, have requested the vote, which diplomats said was likely to take
place at 3 p.m. (1600 EDT).
The 15-member council had been due to vote on Thursday afternoon and
Western officials said the United States had intended to allow the draft resolution
to be adopted, a major reversal of U.S. practice of protecting Israel from action.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
“We see the tragedy of the terrible suffering of the civilians,” Netanyahu said at an annual
Also Tuesday, Netanyahu spoke out against the attack in Berlin.
“Israel condemns what appears to be a terror attack in Germany,” Netanyahu told reporters Tuesday. “We send our condolences to the families of the victims and of course to
One of the issues being explored, one government official said, is the question of how to
Netanyahu said he does not see a resolution now for the Syrian situation. “Will it come
Regarding the Palestinian issue, Netanyahu said that with the election of Donald Trump
Netanyahu: Israel is looking to absorb injured Syrians from Aleppo
The Foreign Ministry on Tuesday began exploring ways for Israel to expand the medical
assistance given to civilian casualties in Syria, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on
Tuesday.
“We see the tragedy of the terrible suffering of the civilians,” Netanyahu said at an annual
New Year’s event he holds with the foreign press.
“We are prepared to take in wounded women and children, and also men if they are not combatants. Bring them to Israel, [we will] take care of them in our hospitals as we have
done with thousands of Syrian civilians. We are looking into ways of doing this. It is being
explored as we speak.”
Also Tuesday, Netanyahu spoke out against the attack in Berlin.
“Israel condemns what appears to be a terror attack in Germany,” Netanyahu told reporters Tuesday. “We send our condolences to the families of the victims and of course to
the German government and a speedy recovery to the injured, including an Israeli citizen.”
One of the issues being explored, one government official said, is the question of how to
transfer civilians from Aleppo. Up until now, he pointed out, most of the Syrians treated in
Israel were from regions close to the Golan border. Transferring the wounded from Aleppo is
a much more complicated logistical issue, he said.
Netanyahu said he does not see a resolution now for the Syrian situation. “Will it come
together and be a unified Syria? I doubt it. I think you have enclaves there and they are not
about to disappear, but the suffering is great, and the one initiative we took is to help – as I
said – thousands of Syrians who are sometimes mutilated beyond belief. We help them. I
offered to do more today. I don’t know if we can resolve [the crisis in] Syria, but we can help mitigate some of the suffering. That is the best that Israel can do.”
At the same time, he said, Israel will not let the Syrian war or aggression from Syria “spillover
into our territory.” He said that Israel has stringently maintained its red lines on this matter.
Regarding the Palestinian issue, Netanyahu said that with the election of Donald Trump
“everybody is saying, ‘How is Netanyahu going to deal with this if he does not have massive pressure on him?’ Just fine,” he said.
“This is a great opportunity to actually pursue some new ideas I intend to raise with Donald
“This is a great opportunity to actually pursue some new ideas I intend to raise with Donald
Trump when he is in the White House to see how we can solve this conflict.”
Netanyahu refuted the assertion that the settlements are the main issue, saying that while
Netanyahu refuted the assertion that the settlements are the main issue, saying that while
they are an important issue, they are not the core issue.
“They are not even the most important issue, because many arrangements are possible,” he
“They are not even the most important issue, because many arrangements are possible,” he
said, adding that he does not think that “removing people from their homes is one of them. I
think that is a bad idea, whether it applies to Jews or to Arabs.”
Netanyahu said that the Palestinians have not come forward to negotiations “because they
Netanyahu said that the Palestinians have not come forward to negotiations “because they
have basically adopted a strategy of saying, ‘Okay, we won’t foster terrorism, but we won’t
move toward peace, we will move toward international forums and try to get an international dictate on Israel.’” Netanyahu said he has called on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud
Abbas “several hundred times” to enter negotiations, but Abbas refused, “betting the shop on
the idea of an international dictate.
I hope that is out of his field of calculations, and if it is, he should come and talk.”
Among the diplomats who attended the event was the new Turkish ambassador, Kemal
Among the diplomats who attended the event was the new Turkish ambassador, Kemal
Okem, whom Netanyahu acknowledged after taking a question from a Turkish reporter about
Israeli-Turkish relations.
Netanyahu, who said that it was not Israel’s decision to break off diplomatic ties with Turkey,
Netanyahu, who said that it was not Israel’s decision to break off diplomatic ties with Turkey,
said the recent exchange of ambassadors was a “welcome sign.” The premier said that while
there are areas of common interests and challenges, “there are also differences.”
The key, he said, is to maximize the commonalities and minimize the differences. “It is better
The key, he said, is to maximize the commonalities and minimize the differences. “It is better
that we have this relationship than not,” he added.
A question from a Chinese journalist prompted Netanyahu to reveal that he is planning a trip
A question from a Chinese journalist prompted Netanyahu to reveal that he is planning a trip
to China in 2017 to mark 25 years since the establishment of diplomatic ties. Netanyahu
visited China last in 2013, and the next trip is scheduled for late March.
He also said that he plans to visit West Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe in 2017, in
He also said that he plans to visit West Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe in 2017, in
addition to a trip to Australia, Singapore and Fiji planned for February.
Asked by a Spanish journalist why he has taken to sharply criticizing some journalists on his Facebook page lately, Netanyahu replied, “It’s entertaining, it’s fun, I enjoy it.”
Netanyahu said that just as journalists should have the freedom to criticize as much as they
Asked by a Spanish journalist why he has taken to sharply criticizing some journalists on his Facebook page lately, Netanyahu replied, “It’s entertaining, it’s fun, I enjoy it.”
Netanyahu said that just as journalists should have the freedom to criticize as much as they
want, “Guess what, we should have the freedom to criticize them, and that is what I do on occasion, and it’s a lot of fun.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Aleppo and American decline
The fall of Aleppo just weeks before Barack Obama leaves office is a fitting stamp on his Middle East policy of
retreat and withdrawal. The pitiable pictures from the devastated city showed the true cost of Obama’s abdication.
For which he seems to have few regrets, however. In his end-of-year news conference, Obama defended U.S.
inaction with his familiar false choice: It was either stand aside or order a massive Iraq-style ground invasion.
This is a transparent fiction designed to stifle debate. At the beginning of the civil war, the popular uprising was ascendant. What kept a rough equilibrium was regime control of the skies. At that point, the United States, at little risk and cost, could
have declared Syria a no-fly zone, much as it did Iraqi Kurdistan for a dozen years after the Gulf War of 1991.
have declared Syria a no-fly zone, much as it did Iraqi Kurdistan for a dozen years after the Gulf War of 1991.
The U.S. could easily have destroyed the regime’s planes and helicopters on the ground and so cratered its
airfields as to make them unusable. That would have altered the strategic equation for the rest of the war.
And would have deterred the Russians from injecting their own air force — they would have had to challenge ours
for air superiority. Facing no U.S. deterrent, Russia stepped in and decisively altered the balance, pounding the
rebels in Aleppo to oblivion. The Russians were particularly adept at hitting hospitals and other civilian targets,
leaving the rebels with the choice between annihilation and surrender.
Theysurrendered.
Speaking about the bloodshed and violence in Aleppo, Syria, during a news conference, Dec. 16, President Obama reflected on the actions he took and the responsibility he felt. "Unless we ... were going to take over Syria, we
were going to have problems," he said. (Reuters)
were going to have problems," he said. (Reuters)
Obama has never appreciated that the role of a superpower in a local conflict is not necessarily to intervene on
the ground, but to deter a rival global power from stepping in and altering the course of the war. That’s what we
did during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Moscow threatened to send troops to support Egypt and President
Nixon countered by raising America’s nuclear alert status to Defcon 3. Russia stood down.
the ground, but to deter a rival global power from stepping in and altering the course of the war. That’s what we
did during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Moscow threatened to send troops to support Egypt and President
Nixon countered by raising America’s nuclear alert status to Defcon 3. Russia stood down.
Less dramatically but just as effectively, American threats of retaliation are what kept West Germany, South
Korea and Taiwan free and independent through half a century of Cold War.
Korea and Taiwan free and independent through half a century of Cold War.
It’s called deterrence. Yet Obama never had the credibility to deter anything or anyone. In the end, the world’s greatest power was reduced to bitter speeches at the United Nations. “Are you truly incapable of shame?” thundered U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power at the butchers of Aleppo. As if we don’t know the answer. Indeed the shame is onus for terminal naivete, sending
our secretary of state chasing the Russians to negotiate one humiliating pretend cease-fire after another.
our secretary of state chasing the Russians to negotiate one humiliating pretend cease-fire after another.
Even now, however, the Syria debate is not encouraging. The tone is anguished and emotional, portrayed
exclusively in moral terms. Much less appreciated is the cold strategic cost.
exclusively in moral terms. Much less appreciated is the cold strategic cost.
Assad was never a friend. But today he’s not even a free agent. He’s been effectively restored to his throne, but
as the puppet of Iran and Russia. Syria is now a platform, a forward base, from which both these revisionist
regimes can project power in the region.
as the puppet of Iran and Russia. Syria is now a platform, a forward base, from which both these revisionist
regimes can project power in the region.
Iran will use Syria to advance its drive to dominate the Arab Middle East. Russia will use its naval and air bases
to bully the Sunni Arab states, and to shut out American influence.
to bully the Sunni Arab states, and to shut out American influence.
It’s already happening. The foreign and defense ministers of Russia, Iran and Turkey convened in Moscow this
week to begin settling the fate of Syria. Notice who wasn’t there. For the first time in four decades, the United
States, the once dominant power in the region, is an irrelevance.
week to begin settling the fate of Syria. Notice who wasn’t there. For the first time in four decades, the United
States, the once dominant power in the region, is an irrelevance.
With Aleppo gone and the rebels scattered, we have a long road ahead to rebuild the influence squandered over
the past eight years. President-elect Donald Trump is talking about creating safe zones. He should tread carefully. It does no good to try to do now what we should have done five years ago. Conditions are much worse. Russia and Iran
rule. Maintaining the safety of safe zones will be expensive and dangerous. It will require extensive ground
deployments, and it risks military confrontation with Russia.
the past eight years. President-elect Donald Trump is talking about creating safe zones. He should tread carefully. It does no good to try to do now what we should have done five years ago. Conditions are much worse. Russia and Iran
rule. Maintaining the safety of safe zones will be expensive and dangerous. It will require extensive ground
deployments, and it risks military confrontation with Russia.
And why? Guilty conscience is not a good reason. Interventions that are purely humanitarian — from Somalia to
Libya — tend to end badly. We may proclaim a “responsibility to protect,” but when no American interests are at
stake, the engagement becomes impossible to sustain. At the first losses, we go home.
Libya — tend to end badly. We may proclaim a “responsibility to protect,” but when no American interests are at
stake, the engagement becomes impossible to sustain. At the first losses, we go home.
Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
3a)
3a)
Aleppo’s fall is Obama’s failure
Leon Wieseltier is the Isaiah Berlin senior fellow in culture and policy at the Brookings Institution.
Contemplating the extermination of Aleppo and its people, I was reminded of a sentence that I read this summer.
It appeared in an encomium to Elie Wiesel shortly after his death. It was a sterling sentence. It declared: “We
must never be bystanders to injustice or indifferent to suffering.” That was Wiesel’s teaching, exactly. The problem
with the sentence is that it was issued by the White House and attributed to President Obama. And so the
sentence was not at all sterling. It was outrageously hypocritical.
It appeared in an encomium to Elie Wiesel shortly after his death. It was a sterling sentence. It declared: “We
must never be bystanders to injustice or indifferent to suffering.” That was Wiesel’s teaching, exactly. The problem
with the sentence is that it was issued by the White House and attributed to President Obama. And so the
sentence was not at all sterling. It was outrageously hypocritical.
How dare Obama, and members of his administration, speak this way? After five years and more in which the
United States’ inaction in Syria has transformed our country into nothing other than a bystander to the greatest
atrocity of our time, they have forfeited the right to this language. Their angry and anguished utterances are merely
the manipulation of the rhetoric of conscience on behalf of a policy without a trace of conscience. You cannot be
cold-hearted and high-minded at the same time. Historians will record — they will not have to dig deeply or
interpret wildly to conclude — that all through the excruciations of Aleppo, and more generally of Syria, the
United States watched. As we watched, we made excuses, and occasionally we ornamented our excuses with eloquence. The president is enamored of his eloquence. But eloquence is precisely what the wrenching circumstances do not require of him.
In circumstances of moral (and strategic) emergency, his responsibility is not to move us. It is to pick up the phone. “Elie did more than just bear witness,” Obama said in his eulogy, “he acted.” And he added: “Just imagine the peace and justice that
would be possible in our world if more people lived a little more like Elie Wiesel.” Just imagine.
United States’ inaction in Syria has transformed our country into nothing other than a bystander to the greatest
atrocity of our time, they have forfeited the right to this language. Their angry and anguished utterances are merely
the manipulation of the rhetoric of conscience on behalf of a policy without a trace of conscience. You cannot be
cold-hearted and high-minded at the same time. Historians will record — they will not have to dig deeply or
interpret wildly to conclude — that all through the excruciations of Aleppo, and more generally of Syria, the
United States watched. As we watched, we made excuses, and occasionally we ornamented our excuses with eloquence. The president is enamored of his eloquence. But eloquence is precisely what the wrenching circumstances do not require of him.
In circumstances of moral (and strategic) emergency, his responsibility is not to move us. It is to pick up the phone. “Elie did more than just bear witness,” Obama said in his eulogy, “he acted.” And he added: “Just imagine the peace and justice that
would be possible in our world if more people lived a little more like Elie Wiesel.” Just imagine.
If Obama wants credit for not getting us into another war, the credit is his. If he wants credit for not being guilty of “overreach,” the credit is his. If he wants credit for conceiving of every obstacle and impediment to American
action in every corner of the globe, the credit is his. But it is a shameful and incontrovertible fact of our history
that during the past eight years the values of rescue, assistance, protection, humanitarianism and democracy
have been demoted in our foreign policy and in many instances banished altogether. The ruins of the finest
traditions of American internationalism, of American leadership in a darkening world, may be found in the ruins of
Aleppo. Our ostentatious passivity is a primary cause of that darkening. When they go low, we go home. The
Obama legacy in foreign policy is vacuum-creation, which his addled America-First successor will happily ratify.
Aleppo was not destroyed by the Syrian army. It was destroyed by a savage coalition led and protected by Russia
While they massacred innocent men, women and children, we anxiously pondered scenarios of “deconfliction.”
action in every corner of the globe, the credit is his. But it is a shameful and incontrovertible fact of our history
that during the past eight years the values of rescue, assistance, protection, humanitarianism and democracy
have been demoted in our foreign policy and in many instances banished altogether. The ruins of the finest
traditions of American internationalism, of American leadership in a darkening world, may be found in the ruins of
Aleppo. Our ostentatious passivity is a primary cause of that darkening. When they go low, we go home. The
Obama legacy in foreign policy is vacuum-creation, which his addled America-First successor will happily ratify.
Aleppo was not destroyed by the Syrian army. It was destroyed by a savage coalition led and protected by Russia
While they massacred innocent men, women and children, we anxiously pondered scenarios of “deconfliction.”
We need to be unforgivingly clear. The obligation to act against evil in Aleppo was no different from the obligation
to act against the evil in Sarajevo and Srebrenica. (Has anyone ever heard Obama mention Bosnia?) It was no
different from the obligation to act against the evil in Rwanda. It was no different from the obligation to act against
the evil in Auschwitz. And we scorned the obligation. We learned nothing. We forgot everything. We failed. We
did not even try.
to act against the evil in Sarajevo and Srebrenica. (Has anyone ever heard Obama mention Bosnia?) It was no
different from the obligation to act against the evil in Rwanda. It was no different from the obligation to act against
the evil in Auschwitz. And we scorned the obligation. We learned nothing. We forgot everything. We failed. We
did not even try.
No, that is not quite right. It would be incorrect to analyze our delinquency in Syria in the dichotomously simple
terms of action and inaction. The administration creatively pioneered a third option, which it pursued not only in
Syria but also in Ukraine and elsewhere: Between action and inaction, it chose inconsequential action. There is the Obama doctrine! We backed moderate Syrian rebels, but not as seriously or as generously as the immoderate Syrian rebels were
backed. We sent in small numbers of special operators. The CIA ran a few programs. We acted, in sum, only in
ways certain not to affect the outcome. We were strategically feckless. I suspect that the president believes that
the United States has no moral right to affect an outcome in another country. I suspect that he regards such
decisive action as imperialism, or at least as Iraq-like. What this means in practice is that we will not help people
who deserve our help. In the spirit of respecting other societies, we will idly gaze at their destruction. How would
disrespecting them be worse?
terms of action and inaction. The administration creatively pioneered a third option, which it pursued not only in
Syria but also in Ukraine and elsewhere: Between action and inaction, it chose inconsequential action. There is the Obama doctrine! We backed moderate Syrian rebels, but not as seriously or as generously as the immoderate Syrian rebels were
backed. We sent in small numbers of special operators. The CIA ran a few programs. We acted, in sum, only in
ways certain not to affect the outcome. We were strategically feckless. I suspect that the president believes that
the United States has no moral right to affect an outcome in another country. I suspect that he regards such
decisive action as imperialism, or at least as Iraq-like. What this means in practice is that we will not help people
who deserve our help. In the spirit of respecting other societies, we will idly gaze at their destruction. How would
disrespecting them be worse?
As a direct or indirect consequence of our refusal to respond forcefully to the Syrian crisis, we have beheld
secular tyranny, religious tyranny, genocide, chemical warfare, barrel bombs and cluster bombs, the torture and
murder of children, the displacement of 11 million people, the destabilization of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, the ascendancy of Iran in the region, the emergence of Russia as a global power, the diminishment of the American position in the world, the
refugee crisis in Europe, the resurgence of fascism in Europe and a significant new threat to the security of the
United States. It is amazing how much doing nothing can do, especially when it is we who do nothing.
secular tyranny, religious tyranny, genocide, chemical warfare, barrel bombs and cluster bombs, the torture and
murder of children, the displacement of 11 million people, the destabilization of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, the ascendancy of Iran in the region, the emergence of Russia as a global power, the diminishment of the American position in the world, the
refugee crisis in Europe, the resurgence of fascism in Europe and a significant new threat to the security of the
United States. It is amazing how much doing nothing can do, especially when it is we who do nothing.
President Obama says he spoke about the need for a cease fire in Syria when he spoke to Russian President
Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the APEC summit. (Reuters)
Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the APEC summit. (Reuters)
Not long after he mourned Wiesel, the president engaged in another one of his exercises in empathy without consequence. At the U.N. Summit for Refugees and Migrants, he spoke of Alan Kurdi, the Syrian boy who washed up dead on a beach in Turkey. “That little boy on the beach could be our son or our grandson,” the president moistly
said. “We cannot avert our eyes or turn our backs.” And then we proceeded to avert our eyes and turn our backs.
The people who had the power to prevent, stop or even mitigate this catastrophe should now bow their heads and
fall silent and reflect on how it is that they brought us so low. Aleppo is no more, and we are weakened and
disgraced.
said. “We cannot avert our eyes or turn our backs.” And then we proceeded to avert our eyes and turn our backs.
The people who had the power to prevent, stop or even mitigate this catastrophe should now bow their heads and
fall silent and reflect on how it is that they brought us so low. Aleppo is no more, and we are weakened and
disgraced.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
4)
