+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Presentation was released by a patriotic former CIA and Pentagon advisor…
Who believes every American deserves to see the disturbing truth HERE.
Regards,
Matt Insley,
Publisher, Paradigm Press
P.S. When this explosive video gets out, Biden may be forced to end his 2024 campaign. See it here now.
This is credible:
Michael Rubin on Red Sea Security and the Houthi Challenge
Michael Rubin, director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, spoke to a February 12 Middle East Forum podcast (video). The following summarizes his comments:
Iranian-backed Houthi militants are harming the international economy by disrupting global shipping in the Red Sea with anti-ship missile and drone attacks. The Houthis, a Shia tribe in northern Yemen, have been accumulating weapons since their uprising in 2004 against the government of Yemen. In 2009, Iran shipped weaponry to the Houthis in an effort to counter its regional Sunni foe, Saudi Arabia, which had begun "sectarian propaganda" against the Houthis. Iran's assertiveness coincided with the commencement of the Obama administration, and the regime, which was emboldened to "test the waters," concluded that there was "permissiveness."
Even today, many U.S. policymakers are in denial regarding "Iranian fingerprints" in the Houthis' actions, fearing that policy recommendations would then have to address Iran as a "rogue regime." One need only consider Iranian rhetoric to recognize the alliance between the regime and the Houthis. In January 2015, Ali Shirazi, Iran's representative to the Quds Force, a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) charged with cultivating and supporting terrorist groups, considered the Houthis "a version of Hezbollah" that confronts Islam's enemies. In May 2015, Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, indirectly reinforced Shirazi's pronouncement, citing the regime's responsibility to support "the oppressed people" of Yemen. When Iranian leaders speak on behalf of supporting the Houthis, "we need to take them at their word."
Understanding the Iranian dictatorship requires American analysts to put aside "wishful thinking" and admit Iran is a "dictatorship of omission rather than commission." Whatever Khamenei does not expressly forbid is permitted, which can be seen in how the Quds Force and the IRGC operate. There is a "separate culture of command" not typically found in other dictatorships, so that a Houthis drone strike on a ship leaves no "smoking gun" pointing to a direct order from Iran.
America should deny Hudaydah to bad actors by encouraging other forces, including possibly the separatists of the Southern Transitional Council (STC), to enter it and block transit through the port, thereby denying access to the Houthis.
The Biden Administration's decision to use the Navy to escort ships is similar to the Obama administration's successful anti-piracy operation off the coast of Somalia. In the current circumstances, the Biden Administration's approach is unlikely to work because the anti-piracy operation was in "deep blue water one hundred miles from shore" where drones were not a threat. However, the Bab-el-Mandeb strait, through which all the ships bound for the Red Sea must pass, is a narrow chokepoint that exposes ships to many dangers.
The Biden administration's current posture in the Red Sea is analogous to the Reagan administration's re-flagging of Kuwaiti tankers in the Persian Gulf in 1987 to counter Iranian aggression. It bears remembering that it ended in a military confrontation with Iran in 1988 during Operation Praying Mantis, the success of which restored deterrence and quieted the regime.
The Biden administration's failure to target the Houthis could result in a disaster once other regional militants see that "what happens in the Bab-el-Mandeb doesn't stay in the Bab-el-Mandeb." The Iranians once referred to themselves as a "regional power," but a decade ago they redefined themselves as a "pan-regional power" to include the Persian Gulf and the Northern Indian Ocean. Today, "they define their strategic boundaries as the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf of Aden." Now, Iran seeks to encircle countries such as Israel in a "stranglehold" and, without deterrence, will continue to advance in the region.
Deterrence, however, "isn't just a rhetorical strategy." Terrorists decide whether to act as part of a "cost-benefit analysis." If the cost to the terror group is smaller than the advantage gained, they strike. Small Iranian boats buzz U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf, taunting America's unwillingness to act. If Iran calls America's bluff, the U.S. must be willing to do what it takes to make them pull back. It does not require acting every time, but deterrence is as much "psychological as it is military."
Steps to restore deterrence could include launching patrols from Somaliland with a four-man Osprey crew, which is more efficient and far less of a drain on resources than the time U.S. naval ships need to spend in port for maintenance. Deterrence also requires leaning on the Sultanate of Oman, which has been giving the Houthis safe haven and transiting anti-ship missiles for the militants. It is time for America to realize that "not all our so-called allies are on the same page as we are."
Finally, deterrence involves targeting the IRGC overseas. When they target Americans, "it behooves us therefore to push back." Waiting until there is a mass casualty event from a Houthi attack before reacting is "asking for trouble." A more responsible approach is to target Iranian boat missile transfers, which would give their captains pause. "We need to be much more proactive than reactive."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sent by a friend and fellow memo reader. He asked my response. This is what I replied:
+++
I never knew all of this. I always knew she was a compassionate woman, a marvelous ingénue actress and that she died of cancer and was a spokesperson for the U.N.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pathological Biden:
+++
Biden’s Lies on Top of Lies on Top of Lies A pathological prevaricator.
By Victor Davis Hanson
Posted By Ruth King
https://www.frontpagemag.com/bidens-lies-on-top-of-lies-on-top-of-lies/
In the last week, Joe Biden had flat-out lied in the most egregious fashion in so many ways.
In his disastrous press conference of last week, he claimed that special counsel Hur’s report exonerated him. Anyone who read the findings concluded exactly the opposite.
According to Hur, Biden would have been indicted for his willfully unlawful removal of classified documents except for two reasons: one, the Department of Justice protocols apparently prohibit indicting a sitting president; and two, Biden suffers such cognitive decline that the special counsel believes a jury would more likely pity him into acquittal than convict him of what he is certainly guilty.
He lied that Hur brought up his son’s death (“How in the hell dare he raise that?”). In fact, Biden as is his serial wont, raised it, and does on a regular basis, usually deliberately and further lying that his son died while on military duty in Iraq (he died six years subsequently as a civilian in Walter Reed Hospital), and always contorting the death to enhance his own greater sense of grieving.
He lied that he notified authorities when he discovered that he unlawfully had taken out classified documents to various residencies (perhaps for over some 30 plus years during his senatorial and Vice Presidential tenures). In fact, Biden only admitted that he had apparently for decades unlawfully removed classified files in 2017, to his ghostwriter in a recorded tape, and then he hid that fact and kept quiet for five years—until his administration’s special counsel began to investigate Trump for the same thing. Note the worried ghostwriter erased the tape of Biden’s confession as soon as he learned there was an appointment of a special counsel. (Destroy evidence much?)
He lied that the files bore no classification marks. In fact, they did and do.
He lied that he kept the files safe in a secure location. In fact, the special counsel report includes several photographs of the Biden garage, in which there were sloppily stored, open, and torn boxes of classified documents amid a complete mess of junk.
He lied that Trump’s once secure border is somehow responsible for Biden’s intentionally open border.
He just lied that Trump caused the 2022 Putin invasion of Ukraine on Biden’s watch that never occurred on Trump’s.
It is not enough that the Biden team must wildly lie daily that the non-compos-mentis President is dynamic, impressive in his recall and cognition, and stands out as the most astute mind in most of this meetings.
Well apart from his cognitive decline, Biden himself is a pathological prevaricator.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Kill them first, then keep them out.
+++
We must keep terrorists out — by any means necessary
by Asaf Romirowsky-The Hill
Last month, the House voted on what ought to have been the easiest resolution in recent memory.
Introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), the No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act sought to achieve one simple goal: keep any terrorist who participated in or facilitated the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre of thousands of innocent Israelis from entering the U.S.
You would think that even in an American political landscape as highly partisan and divisive as our own, you'd find no one who disagrees with the premise that we shouldn't welcome terrorists who have raped women, beheaded children and executed entire families.
You'd be wrong.
Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.) voted against the bill. Why? Because, according to the two, keeping America safe by keeping convicted terrorists out is merely a bit of "GOP messaging" intended solely "to incite anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, and anti-Muslim hatred that makes communities like ours unsafe."
Once upon a time in America, not so long ago, we understood that it was terrorists, not unsubstantiated accusations of alleged bias, that made us unsafe. And judging by the rampant violence against Jews and others everywhere, from our college campuses to our city centers, it's high time we reminded ourselves of what the real threat is and how to handle it.
We could hardly ask for a better primer on this issue than considering the case of Mousa Abu Marzook.
Born in the Gaza Strip, Abu Marzook was educated in Cairo and found work in the United Arab Emirates. But his sights were set on the United States; before too long, he was admitted to Colorado State University, where he received a master's degree, and then to Louisiana Tech University, from which he graduated with a doctorate in industrial engineering.
But building things wasn't Abu Marzook's chief priority. From his home in Falls Church, Va., he fundraised for the organization he helped create: Hamas. Abu Marzook repeatedly stated that none of the money he was sending to his colleagues in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was used to pay for terrorist attacks, but the U.S. Treasury Department had its doubts. In 1995, Abu Marzook was listed as a Specially Designated Terrorist, and was swiftly detained at Kennedy Airport in New York.
Abu Marzook remained in detention for 22 months. While he was incarcerated, David Boim, an American teenager living in Israel, was waiting at a bus stop when two Hamas terrorists drove by and murdered him in cold blood, making Boim the first American ever slain by Hamas. Boim's parents, Stanley and Joyce, sued a host of individuals — Abu Marzook included, whom they held responsible for their son's murder.
Eventually, Abu Marzook accepted the terrorism charges against him and agreed to relinquish his green card. In return, he was deported to Jordan, where he became one of Hamas's top leaders. In 2004, he was indicted by the United States for knowingly providing and attempting to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization.
After the Oct. 7 massacre, Abu Marzook made headlines once again, preposterously arguing that none of his men knowingly massacred innocent civilians. Instead, he told reporters that the terrorist who slaughtered hundreds of innocent party-goers at the Nova music festival did so merely because they mistook them all for "resting soldiers."
As we ask ourselves what to do about the kaffiyeh-clad protestors who block airports and cancer hospitals, tear down photos of kidnapped Jewish babies and pummel visibly Jewish neighbors, we would do well to revisit Abu Marzook's case, as it offers an important precedent for anyone concerned with offering viable, impactful courses of action to meet our current — and considerable — challenge.
As we face those who wish to use the bounties of our democracy against us, we must find new and creative ways to safeguard our most valuable institutions. Some measures are easy and obvious, like making sure our police officers keep the peace, or that college administrators do not protect foreign students who break federal laws and express support for terrorist groups like Hamas. But some, like the measure used to toss out Abu Marzook, are more sensitive.
Expatriation, or the revoking of an American's citizenship or permanent resident status, is an extreme measure. Section 1481 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, originally passed in 1952 and revised routinely since, argues that treason is the foremost reason to deny someone their citizenship status. And treason is hard to qualify, especially when it comes to terror groups, which aren't state actors, and which are increasingly more adept at hiding their intentions and resources alike. So, while we've much work ahead of us trying to figure out precisely when and how to use this potent tool, we mustn't shy away from considering its viability.
In the case of Musa Abu Marzook, at least, it helped make America a safer and more just place. Here's hoping we're wise enough to continue and keep the terrorists out, by any means necessary.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fascinating article;
+++
When Obama’s Dreams Became Bibi’s Nightmares
REVIEW: ‘My Brother’s Keeper: Netanyahu, Obama, & the Year of Terror & Conflict that Changed the Middle East Forever’
by Ari Harow
Posted By Sean Durns
The United States and Israel have a special relationship predicated on shared values and similar democratic principles. As Ari Harow documents in My Brother’s Keeper, that relationship was sorely tested during the Obama administration. Harow, a former chief of staff and adviser to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, offers an insider’s account of a transformational period for both nations.
Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th U.S. president on Jan. 20, 2009. Less than three months later, Benjamin Netanyahu assumed the office of prime minister. The two men had some things in common: Both are media savvy and renowned orators with keen political instincts. Both had experienced rapid political ascents. Both were, in their own ways, titanic figures capable of inspiring both admiration and animosity. But here the similarities end.
Long before he entered politics, Netanyahu was a soldier, a combat veteran of Sayeret Matkal, an elite special forces unit. By the time he took office, Netanyahu already had a long political career, including serving as prime minister from 1996 to 1999, and had held a variety of cabinet posts. He had nearly three decades of political experience.
By contrast, Obama had never been in the military and had served a mere four years in the Senate.
Importantly, both leaders were products of very different systems. The representative nature of American politics meant that Obama had to be a master at campaigning. Netanyahu, however, had to answer to the Likud membership. As Harow notes, Netanyahu was a "soldier, someone who spent years being groomed for his higher calling and who had learned survival in the unforgiving trenches of the Israeli political system." The Israeli premier "wasn’t stiff or removed, but he wasn’t Obama." Indeed, "in the internal scheme of things, he didn’t have to be."
Yet, these different backgrounds were not what drove tensions during the Obama years. In fact, the history of U.S.-Israel relations is characterized by leaders who are often more dissimilar than alike. For example, Yitzhak Rabin and Bill Clinton enjoyed a good relationship and one would be hard-pressed to think of men as different as the tight-lipped soldier-statesman and the famously gregarious, glad-handing former governor of Arkansas.
As Harow makes clear, the root of the divide that emerged had less to do with relations between the leaders themselves and more to do with their differing aims and objectives.
Obama sought rapprochement with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism that calls for Israel’s annihilation and another genocide of Jews. The mullahs sponsored, trained, and funded terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction and vowed to wipe Israel "off the map." It is hard to imagine any mainstream, electable Israeli leader quietly acceding to a longtime partner and ally feting a nation committed to its destruction.
As a presidential candidate, Obama had promised to "never seek in any way to compromise Israel’s security," but the policies that he pursued as president would do precisely that. It was, in fact, clear from the beginning that Obama sought to change the U.S.-Israel relationship.
In their first meeting as leaders of their respective countries, Obama asked to speak with Netanyahu privately. The meeting lasted approximately 30 minutes. Afterwards, Netanyahu would tell Harow: "Ari, we’re in trouble."
As Harow recounts: "The president told him in an emphatic tone that he wanted a total building freeze in the West Bank," using the phrase "not one brick." It was, he notes, "diplomatic-speak that was just about as nuanced as a sledge-hammer blow, and it foreshadowed an impending seismic fissure in the U.S.-Israeli bilateral paradigm that had become a full-fledged operational alliance after 9/11, with Israel assuming a leading role in the global war on terrorism."
The Israeli premier had "wanted this trip to launch a productive and positive new beginning for the two new administrations" only to find that it "had not started as planned," as Harow understatedly puts it.
As his presidential memoirs would later reveal, Obama holds several beliefs about Israel and the Middle East that simply aren’t true, including the common misconception that "settlements"—Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland—are a chief source of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Palestinian leaders, from the ruling Fatah movement in the West Bank to Hamas in the Gaza Strip, consider all of Israel to be a "settlement"—and they routinely say as much in their media and educational textbooks. It is for this reason that Palestinian leaders have rejected numerous offers for statehood in exchange for peace with Israel.
In many respects, Obama’s emphasis on "settlements" as a root cause of the conflict was a throwback: a reversion to decades of failed approaches pushed by the U.S. State Department and presidential administrations of various political stripes.
But by the time Obama took office, the U.S.-Israel relationship was arguably at a historic high, thanks in large part to shared objectives during the war on terror. From 2000 to 2008, Palestinian leaders rejected no fewer than three formal offers for statehood—a fact that wasn’t lost on Obama’s two predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Clinton famously declared, "I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state," and warned his successor not to trust Yasser Arafat. Obama, however, viewed himself as someone apart from historical realities. As Harow notes, Obama "wanted to be the one world leader to finally settle the Israeli-Palestinian issue." Yet, "there was a lot of bloodshed in the wake of men who dreamed of reshaping the Middle East." To many in the region, Obama’s dreams looked more like nightmares.
Obama’s policies toward Iran would lead to real tensions—and not just with Israel. The Islamic Republic is a revisionist power, committed to exporting its twisted ideology and overthrowing the established regional order. By reaching out to Tehran, Obama was unwittingly pushing Gulf Arab monarchies and the Jewish state closer together. This process would eventually culminate in the Abraham Accords under the Trump administration. Harow highlights its origins, correctly noting that Israel gained regional respect when it flexed its muscles and Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress to oppose the emerging Iran nuclear deal.
At the time, Israel had recently emerged from a bloody 50-day war against Hamas, the Iranian proxy that controls the Gaza Strip. That conflict began after Hamas operatives kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teenagers. And its characteristics—bloody urban combat, extensive use of human shields, and lengthy terrorist tunnels—were a harbinger of the war that Israel fights today.
"The Middle East," Harow observes, "has a funny way of unraveling the dreams and best intentions of American presidents … the naïve aspirations of the blessed-are-the-peacemakers have inadvertently produced byproducts of bloodshed and anguish." In My Brother’s Keeper, Harow ably and fairly chronicles that unraveling, depicting an American presidency whose ambitions in the Middle East ran counter to the daily realities of many of America’s allies.
My Brother’s Keeper: Netanyahu, Obama, & the Year of Terror & Conflict that Changed the Middle East Forever
by Ari Harow
Post Hill Press, 298 pp., $30
Sean Durns is a senior research analyst for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis.
And:
I would love for Obama to go to Israel and visit with the
Palestinians. He could take his pen and phone.
As for Blinken, he is the Bernie Sanders of The State
Department.
Biden is not in this world and just mucks up whatever he
touches.
+++
Frrom Israel: Lunacy Follows Lunacy!!
By Arlene Kushner
Before we look at the politically absurd – maddening – situation we are dealing with, I report on a terror attack that took place on Friday afternoon at a bus stop near the Re’em Masmiya Junction, near Kiryat Malachi in the northern Negev.
Two were killed: Yishai Gartner, 23, a yeshiva student from Modi'in Illit and Sergeant First Class (res.) Ori Yaish, 27, a reservist from Modi'in (on the left below).
Four others were wounded, two critically -- a boy of about 16 and a man of about 65, and two moderately – a woman of about 65 and a 52-year-old man .
The terrorist, an Arab from Shuafat in eastern Jerusalem, was killed by an armed civilian. Once again, a legally armed civilian steps up to stop terror.
https://www.jns.org/terrorist-wounds-israelis-near-kiryat-malachi/
Said Prime Minister Netanyahu: “This attack reminds us that the entire country is on the frontline.
We all know better than to expect consistent rational, reasoned thinking in the political, diplomatic arena. There are too many diverse factors at play, too many competing motivations. But what we are seeing from the Biden Administration now is extraordinary in its irrationality. All logic – or perhaps I should say all straight talk – has been tossed aside.
Biden has declared multiple times that he supports Israel’s goal in eradicating Hamas in Gaza. Just days ago, he held an extensive phone call with Netanyahu. According to the White House readout of this conversation:
“The President reaffirmed our shared goal to see Hamas defeated and to ensure the long-term security of Israel and its people.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/02/11/readout-of-president-bidens-call-with-prime-minister-netanyahu-of-israel-11/
Got that? “shared goal to see Hamas defeated…”
But Biden is doing his utmost to prevent Israel from defeating Hamas. We must go into the Rafah area to take out the last remaining Hamas battalions. If we don’t do this, they are not defeated.
Netanyahu says that “Not fighting in Rafah would mean losing the war; I won’t let that happen.
Biden first attempted to stop the IDF from going into Rafah by claiming that since we had no plan to secure the safety of the civilians there, we could not go in.
Netanyahu replied that we did have a plan, with tent cities to be set up further north
Biden then upped his demand. On Friday he insisted that there had to be a “temporary” ceasefire to get the hostages out before the Rafah operation. “My hope and expectation is that we’ll get this hostage deal...The deal is being worked on now.”
There are several problems with this statement. First, there is no deal being worked on. Biden surely knows this. Hamas has continued to make outlandish demands that Israel will have no part of. If we are going to wait for a successful resolution of negotiations, we’ll be waiting a very, very long time.
Actually, Israel has stopped participating in the talks in Cairo because the demands by Hamas continue to be, as our prime minister said, “delusional”— complete withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza, release from our prisons of senior terrorists with blood on their hands, international guarantees that they would remain standing, etc. And now Hamas says they will stop negotiating with the US, Qatar, and Egypt.
Add to this the fact that what Biden wants is not a “temporary” ceasefire. He has said repeatedly that he hopes a temporary ceasefire would become permanent. His statement is duplicitous.
Last week, in a press conference after meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan, he said the US was working on a hostage deal that would see a pause of at least six weeks, “which we could then [use] to build something more enduring.”
As to the claim that only a negotiated ceasefire will secure release of the hostages, this past week the IDF put the lie to this assumption:
In the small hours of last Monday morning, in a complex operation involving the IDF, the Shin Bet and Israeli police, two hostages being held by Hamas in the heart of Rafah were rescued. Fernando Marman, 61, and Luis Norbeto Har, 70, both Argentinian-Israelis who are part of the same extended family from Kibbutz Nir Yitzhak, were brought out alive.
“Israeli forces entered the compound clandestinely and used explosives, heavy fire and highly intimate intelligence about the exact placement of the hostages versus their guards to rescue Marman and Har without Hamas being able to kill them first.”
Please note: they were held in the home of a “civilian.” One of the “innocent” ones, surely.
Other family members had been taken captive and were released earlier. They were taken to Sheba hospital to be checked and were greeted by grateful relatives.
Their rescue does not mean that the IDF is now able to rush in and bring out the remaining hostages that are being held, one, two, three. But this does change the dynamic.
In addition to which, our military people keep saying that pressure on Hamas is the best way to secure release of additional hostages.
And then, with all I have written above, there is this to be thankful for:
Algeria has drafted a resolution about to be brought to the UN Security Council calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza; a vote is expected on Tuesday.
It will be vetoed by the US. “US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said the text could jeopardize ‘sensitive negotiations’ aimed at brokering a pause in the war.”
Not sure what “sensitive negotiations” she is referring to, but OK.
There are indications from a Washington Post report that the US is hoping to announce a Palestinian state right after successful negotiations for securing the hostages. Thus the great eagerness for these negotiations to succeed
Egypt has been solidly against a major IDF operation in Rafah, which is immediately adjacent to the border with Egypt. The fear is that civilians will break through from Rafah into the Sinai.
Now from reliable sources, we learn that that “construction work currently taking place in eastern Sinai, is intended to create a high-security gated and isolated area near the borders with Gaza strip, in preparation for the reception of Palestinian refugees in the case of the mass exodus of the citizens of Gaza Strip.”
This is not preparation for voluntarily receiving Gazan civilians – a stance that would have helped alleviate current concerns. It is in anticipation of a worst-case scenario in which the civilians break through into Gaza.
The camp will be eight square miles in size and accommodate 100,000 people, who will be prevented from moving freely elsewhere in the Sinai
Let us turn now to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, whose positions are even more maddening than those of Biden.
I have written repeatedly in recent days about Blinken’s comments regarding a “reformed” and “revitalized” PA, which would form the basis for a Palestinian state.
My last post addressed the fact that because of the PLO Strategy of Stages, such a “reform” would be cosmetic only.
But it’s much worse. Mahmoud Abbas who is chair of the PLO and acts as president of the PA, isn’t even pretending – isn’t even behaving as if he is working on positive reforms. Quite the contrary.
Abbas and other powers-that-be in the PA have announced the desire to merge with Hamas, incorporating Hamas as a faction within the PLO.
“The Palestinian Authority is inching closer to an agreement that would see Hamas terrorists become part of the Western-backed leadership in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Arabic media outlets reported on Tuesday.
“Sources in Ramallah told Sky News Arabia that Hamas approved a three-phase plan leading to ‘complete reconciliation [with Fatah]’ and the Gaza-based terror group joining the Palestine Liberation Organization, which controls the Palestinian Authority, under a ‘unified Palestinian-Arab vision.’
There has not been a single word from Blinken about the fact that this merger would run contrary to all notions of genuine PA “reform.”
If this weren’t all so serious, we might laugh at the fact that he says Arab states are working on “revitalizing” the PA.
Revitalizing it how? “…so it can be more effective in representing the Palestinians.”
What this apparently means is if the people in the PA areas are OK with Hamas – and polls show they are, that what Hamas did on October 7 made them proud – then it’s just fine if the leaders of the PA want to merge with Hamas.
Re-education in the PA for peace? Nah
As the Biden Administration is promoting the placement of the PA in Gaza at the end of the war, this would bring Hamas back in even if Israel defeated it.
Blinken is not above arm twisting in an attempt to achieve his goals. There is "an extraordinary opportunity" in the coming months for Israel to normalize ties with its Arab neighbors, he said on Saturday, at a Munich Security Conference.
"Virtually every Arab country now genuinely wants to integrate Israel into the region to normalize relations...to provide security commitments and assurances so that Israel can feel more safe.
“And there's also, I think the imperative, that's more urgent than ever, to proceed to a Palestinian state that also ensures the security of Israel."
Translation: Israel can have the benefit of normalization with all Arab countries including Saudi Arabia. All that is required is for Israel to recognize a Palestinian state and allow it to rule in Gaza, which will increase Israeli security.
This position represents a betrayal of Israel and puts the lie to all of Blinken’s statements delivered early in the war regarding having our back.
It is shameful.
Thank Heaven, then, for our clear-eyed leaders with backbone.
At today’s Cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Netanyahu said: “In light of remarks that have been heard recently in the international community about an attempt to unilaterally force a Palestinian state on Israel, today I submit for government approval a declarative decision on the issue.”
The statement subsequently submitted by the prime minister was made in coordination with War Cabinet Minister Benny Gantz and Cabinet Minister Gideon Sa’ar.
“Sa’ar said that the reported U.S. proposal for a ‘firm timeline’ on the creation of a Palestinian state “would be like the sacrificing of Czechoslovakia in 1938,” referring to the Munich Agreement and West’s attempted appeasement of Hitler prior to WWII and the Holocaust…
“Energy Minister Eli Cohen, who was foreign minister until last month, told Army Radio that ‘if the price of expanding [the Abraham Accords] is a Palestinian state, then I’ll give up on the peace agreements.’”
The statement that was released says (emphasis added):
[] Israel utterly rejects international diktats regarding a permanent settlement with the Palestinians. A settlement, if it is to be reached, will come about solely through direct negotiations between the parties, without preconditions.
[] Israel will continue to oppose unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. Such recognition in the wake of the October 7th massacre would be a massive and unprecedented reward to terrorism and would prevent any future peace settlement.
This was unanimously passed by the full Cabinet.
Be forewarned then about false news that has come out saying Netanyahu would agree to a Palestinian state for the sake of normalization with Saudi Arabia.
The good news today is the fact that our leaders are holding strong. Much more soon.
Keep praying to Heaven for Israel, my friends. Pray for the strength and wisdom of our leaders, for the safety of our soldiers, and for the rescue of our hostages. Pray with a heart filled with hope.
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by independent journalist Arlene Kushner. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment