Maximum Restraint

Hat Tip to Elder of Ziyon


Click here if the video fails to load.

Theological Question

The curse can be found in Genesis 12:1-3

1.  Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee.

2.   And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing.

3.   And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Something President Barack Hussein Obama should have been told and often.

Kerry Frustrated At Peace Framework Between Jews And Amalekites In The Persian Empire

Stolen from Elder of Ziyon

Achashtranim News Service (ANS) SHUSHAN - Secretary of State John Kerry is preparing to return to the Persian Empire to defuse the escalating tensions between the Jews and the Amalekites in that Middle Eastern kingdom.

Secretary Kerry thought that he had a framework agreement hammered out between the two parties, including that Jews should be allowed to live "freely and peacefully in the Empire." But Parshandata, spokesman for the Amalekites, refused this condition, saying "International law is on our side."

"The King specifically passed a decree saying, and I quote, 'to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.' The UN and international laws upholds the right of kingdoms to make up their own decrees and to enforce them, This is a local Persian issue and there is no reason for Secretary Kerry to get involved."

Mordechai, a Jewish activist from Shushan, disagrees. "The Amalekites and Agagites are suggesting no less than genocide against an entire people," he said, as he led a small protest outside the King's gates wearing sackcloth and ashes in a media stunt..

Parshandata vehemently denies Mordechai's statement. "There is no such thing as a Jewish people. The idea of Jewish peoplehood is incompatible with the facts of history. They are nothing but criminals, and they have no right to live freely and peacefully."

Mordechai, the Jewish leader, continues to insist this language be included.

Aridata, an Agagite leader and head of the "Brutally Decapitate Semites" (BDS) movement, charged that the Jews were poised to take over the entire kingdom and must be utterly destroyed. While sharpening his sword, he stated, "They already illegally occupy the capital, and many other cities and villages have gathering places where they get together and scheme to dominate everyone else. I hear rumors that there is a Monica Lewinsky situation going on in the King's palace itself, and that the king is being held hostage by a Jewish woman who is blackmailing him!"

Secretary Kerry, not wanting to upset either of the parties in this delicate time for negotiations, and showing frustration that his plan could unravel without an agreement, backtracked on the "live freely and peacefully" condition. He told Congress this week that insisting on the "freely and peacefully" language would be a "mistake for some people to be, you know, raising it again and again as the critical decider." However, in a move that may upset the Amalekites, Kerry insisted that the United States does not want to see the Jews "perish" on the 13th of Adar. "We would strongly protest any mass murder, if it comes to that," Kerry said.

Amnesty International refused to take any sides in the matter. Deborah Hyams, Amnesty researcher on Middle East issues, said, "We are of course against genocide, but the Amalekites have a point when they say that Jews are not a people and killing them all would not constitute 'genocide'. Also, the language of the decree does not sanction mass murder explicitly, but only 'to cause to perish,' which may mean to allow Jews to have the human rights to kill themselves if they so choose.

"We have more important issues to deal with, such as the illegal building of Jewish homes in Judea by the minority who remain there illegally after their alleged Temple was destroyed.

Sacrificing America's Troops ~~~ By J. D. Longstreet

Stolen from Faultline USA

America's Next War Will Be A Blood Bath

Look. I'm no "super patriot" or anything approaching that. I do, however, have a deep and abiding love for America and at one point in my youth signed my name to the necessary papers stating that I would willingly give up my life for my country as a soldier in the United States Army.

I was a lousy soldier. In fact, I was so bad, I was chosen for Officer's Candidate School, which I promptly turned down, ticking off my commanding officer something awful and, as a result, I spent much of my time for the next several weeks working KP duty and any dirty job the CO could come up with to degrade and humiliate me.

Not a problem. I stuck to my guns and he to his. I never felt the least bit of remorse for my decision -- and -- given the same set of circumstances as then, I'd make the same decision again. However, had I known then what I know now, I'd have taken that slot at OCS school at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and got my behind off Tank Hill at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

C'est la vie -- such is life.

This stroll down Longstreet's Memory Lane is brought to you courtesy of Obama's gutting of the US military.

For those of you who have been around as long as I have, you understand what is happening and what will, inevitably, happen when next we go to war. (Never think, for an instant, there will not be a "next" war. There is always, repeat -- ALWAYS -- another war. So long as human beings inhabit this planet, we're going to fight each other. Why, it's the greatest adventure a man can have and we're not about to give it up.)

Students of American history know that our Founding Fathers had an aversion to a standing army. The Founders knew that standing armies often used the power with which they had been entrusted to enslave the very peoples they had sworn to protect even though they had been organized and sworn-in precisely to protect the country from its enemies.

Eventually, reaching the decision that a country MUST, indeed, have a trained military to protect its interests, the Founders settled upon a military under strict civilian control. It has worked tolerably well, but there is a prickliness between our military leaders and the civilian politician controllers that is, at times, palpable.

It is an open secret that (until recently), by far, the US military -- from the enlisted ranks to the officer corp are of a conservative political bent. It is the nature of the beast. The political left has been attempting to destroy that bastion of conservatism, which has been a burr under their saddle for two and a half centuries.

Today they are making serious inroads into the military and the destruction of same is well within sight. By infusing the greatest fighting force the world has even known with homosexuals and female combat soldiers, the capability of the American combat arms to be effective on the battle field has been deeply compromised. We will see just how compromised when we count the body bags returning from wherever the next war is fought, if, of course, it is not fought here on our own shores (which is a growing possibility every day).

With a joke of a Commander-in-Chief (who could not successfully command a Cub Scout troop) in charge, and rules of engagement that do not allow American forces to inflict serious, lasting, damage on the enemy and subjects our fighting forces to unacceptable levels of unnecessary danger, more and more of our troops are breaking down mentally from the mounting stress of the battlefield with no way to release the pressure in a good old knock -down-drag-out, no-holds-barred, winner-take-all firefight.

That happens when you take a group of men and train them to kill in great numbers as quickly and efficiently as possible -- and then force them to take the enemies abuse in battle without exercising their superior ability to wipe the floor up with said enemy. It is depressing and degrading to our fighting forces.

Esprit de corp is all but gone. Active duty soldiers dread being outed as US soldiers for fear of being thought of as homosexuals. As a result fewer recruits are enlisting. If the job market was better, there would be even less fresh recruits signing up.

The US military which has traditionally enjoyed the love and devotion of the American civilian is finding that admiration has slipped and is continuing to decline at an alarming rate.

With the political purge of the officer corp by the Obama regime, we have lost far too many fighting generals and are left with parade ground peacocks and politician soldiers whose worst fight to date has been a traffic jam on some freeway.

Think I'm nuts, huh? Just remember: The US hasn't won a war since the Second World War! Still think I'm blowing smoke??

And now the Obama Regime intends to cut the standing Army to levels it has not experienced since BEFORE WWII.

For those of you too young to remember, after World War One we cut the US military tremendously. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the US barely had a military. We had what we are about to have again, a bare bones force of old equipment and badly trained kids for soldiers.

So. What happened? Well, for six or eight months after the US decided to officially put up a fight, our military was slammed all over the globe. We lost one battle after another. Our dead and wounded piled up because we had nothing -- and no one -- with which to fight. The will and the spirit was there, but not the wherewithal.

That was what the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo was all about. The American public and the American military had become so dispirited the Roosevelt government felt it had to do something to boost morale. Thus, the Thirty Seconds over Tokyo spectacle.

If the US is called to a conventional war with "Obama's military" we can expect to take unacceptable losses for months, maybe longer. But this is a different time, a time of Buck Rogers' weapons.

What I'm attempting to say is this: if an enemy gets in a first strike and that first strike happens to be a nuclear attack or and EMP attack, the US won't have the time or the opportunity to rebuild it's military. We will be stuck with whatever we have on hand, both men and materiel. As a former Secretary of Defense famously said: "We go to war with the army we have."

Doesn't it make sense to have a standing Army that is the biggest, best equipped, best trained, best led fighting force on earth -- I mean, seeing that there won't be a second chance to get it right?

So far, the Obama Regime has managed to alienate practically every country on earth, to one degree or another, against America. Even centuries long friends are stand-offish as a result of Obama's unpredictability.

Usually a country has AN arch enemy. America has a whole list of them -- anyone of which could deliver a debilitating attack upon our shores at any moment.

The world we live in today is a reflection of the world as it was in the 1930's -- just before it blew up.

There is Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, the Islamofascists, all of them preparing to hit America with nuclear and/or EMP attacks. All the while, Obama is cutting our military to the bone and decimating our nuclear arsenal.

I am very concerned that we have missed our chance to save America. By reelecting Obama in 2012, America chose defeat, ruin, and eventual enslavement. And there appears no chance for redemption in the coming Presidential Election in 2016.

More and more, I am coming to understand that the dye is cast, the Rubicon has been crossed. Our course has been chosen and set. I get the feeling that the train has left the station, the journey has begun and, unfortunately, we are all along for the ride.

Defeatism? No. Defeatism was in November 2012. No. This is acceptance of reality.

Obama’s Betrayal Of Israel As A Jewish State

When I first heard this I wasn't shocked at all.  I knew that this was Barack Hussein Obama's plan from the moment he became President.

From Frontpage Magazine:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has flatly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Such recognition is a key condition that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded for reaching an acceptable peace agreement on a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

Prime Minister Netanyahu explained the importance of such Palestinian recognition, which would amount to an expression of the Palestinians’ good faith intention to truly end the conflict by accepting Israel’s right of self-determination to once and for all live in peace as the Jewish state its founders envisioned:

“The central question at the end is of course ‘Are you willing to recognize that the state of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish nation?’. If you don’t have the brunt of the agreement, then why turn to the leftovers. Concentrate on the central and difficult questions that they need to provide an answer for, but they don’t provide an answer. If they do give an answer — its negative. They say that they will not recognize a Jewish state in order to leave the right of return on the table. So then what are we even talking about here? That a Palestinian state will be established but it will continue its conflict against the state of Israel with more preferential borders? We are a lot of things, but we are definitely not fools.”

Incredibly, the U.S. State Department backs Abbas’ position. The spokeswoman for the State Department, Jen Psaki, stated in an interview Saturday with the “Al-Quds” newspaper that “[T]here is no need for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The American stance is clear in that it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, but there is no need for the Palestinians to recognize it as such in a final agreement.”

Psaki is ignoring the Palestinians’ intent to throw out any Israelis still living in an independent Palestinian state. Abbas, for example, declared that “If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories.” He denied that he was against the Jews per se, but such antipathy is precisely what animates the xenophobic, anti-Jewish Palestinian ideology. This ideology starts with the Palestinian Authority’s attempt to falsely re-write the history of the Jewish homeland, denying that Jews have any historic connection to the land at all. Official Palestinian Authority outlets broadcast this lie over and over again. For example, in a documentary appearing last December on an official Palestinian Authority TV station, a woman proclaimed: “I’m not against Jews. They can live. They can live on Mars, Allah willing, but they cannot take over places that are not their places, or land that is not their land and a homeland that is not their homeland.”

On January 7, 2014, the official spokesperson for President Abbas, Nabil Abu Rudeina, accused the Israeli government of “falsifying history.”

Then there is the provocative statement by Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash in a sermon delivered in the presence of Abbas and broadcast on official Palestinian Authority TV. Al-Habbash said that any peace agreement reached with Israel is just the first step towards defeating Israel, citing as the “model” Mohammed’s conquest of Mecca just two years after he had signed a treaty that gave his forces time to gain enough strength to carry out the conquest.

Recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state would be contrary to the Palestinians’ goal of returning millions of the descendants of the original refugees to pre-1967 Israel. In other words, while insisting that Israel withdraw to the pre-1967 lines to make way for an independent Palestinian state devoid of any Israeli Jews, the Palestinians still demand the right to undermine the Jewish character of Israel, even as it existed pre-1967, by flooding Israel with so-called “refugees” (actually many descendants several generations removed from the original refugees) rather than giving them real homes in an independent Palestinian state.

Thus, Psaki’s dismissal of the importance that Israel attaches to the Palestinians’ recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, as part of any viable peace agreement, enables the Palestinians to continue to pursue their xenophobic, anti-Jewish agenda. However, Psaki is simply reflecting the Obama administration’s willingness to turn a blind eye to Israel’s core concern to maintain its Jewish identity. The Obama administration is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate Palestinian prejudices in pursuit of a vacuous peace. President Obama displayed this callousness during the course of an interview he conducted late last month with Jeffrey Goldberg, a columnist for Bloomberg View. Obama issued a veiled threat of diminished U.S. support for the Jewish state if Israel does not succumb to his demand for more concessions: “If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction — and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time,” Obama said. “If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.”

Obama made no mention of the Palestinian demand for the “right of return,” which could allow potentially millions of refugee descendants to descend on a land they did not come from in the first place. Why doesn’t he publicly upbraid Abbas for refusing to concede on this unreasonable destabilizing demand?

This brings us back to the issue of the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as part of a final peace agreement. Perhaps there is an alternative solution which might be difficult for the Palestinians to refuse. They should at least be willing to explicitly acknowledge in the final agreement their support of the two-state principle declared in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 recommending the partition of Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish states. The Palestinian Authority would have a hard time refusing this proposal since the General Assembly resolution according it observer state status at the UN contains in its preamble the words “The General Assembly…Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947.”

Moreover, the Application of the State of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations, which the Palestinians submitted to the UN Secretary General on September 23, 2011, states as follows:

“This application for membership is being submitted based on the Palestinian people’s natural, legal and historic rights and based on United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947…”

Part II of Resolution 181 contains Section A, entitled “THE ARAB STATE,” and Section B, entitled “THE JEWISH STATE.” Why can’t Abbas at least be willing to repeat these headings in an acknowledgment of the rights accorded both sides in the two-state solution embodied in Resolution 181, the resolution he now relies on as a basis for an independent Palestinian state?

Finally, President Abbas himself said he realized that it was a mistake for the Arab states to have rejected the General Assembly Resolution 181 partition plan. In an interview in 2011 with the Israeli Channel Two, President Abbas said: “At that time, 1947, there was Resolution 181, the partition plan, Palestine and Israel. Israel existed. Palestine diminished. Why? […] I know, I know. It was our mistake. It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole.”

What the Obama administration should be telling President Abbas in no uncertain terms is to correct the Palestinians’ historic mistake once and for all by explicitly embracing the principle of a Jewish state and an Arab state living side by side, as outlined in Resolution 181. It is time to call Abbas’ bluff rather than having the State Department run interference for him.



Click here if video fails to load.

I contend that the destruction of Israel and the scattering/murder of the Jewish people is and has always been the plan that Obama and the Democrats have had.

Edinburg Votes to Join Texas, Accelerating Mexico Crisis

Stolen from Gates of Vienna

An amusing take on the Crimean crises.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The latest on the Mexican crisis, from Reuters:

EDINBURG, Mexico (Reuters) March 6, 2022 — Edinburg’s legislature voted to join Texas on Thursday and its Washington-backed government set a referendum within 10 days on the decision in a dramatic escalation of the crisis over Tamaulipas state in Mexico.

The Edinburg region of Texas — which was ceded to Mexico in 2016 by then-President Barack Obama to satisfy domestic political pressures — consists on the former counties of Webb, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Starr, Hidalgo, Willacy, and Cameron. The region is now part of Tamaulipas state.

The sudden acceleration of moves to bring Edinburg, which has an Anglo majority and has effectively been seized by Texan forces, formally under Austin’s rule came as UN leaders gathered for an emergency summit to find ways to pressure Texas to back down.

Russian President Vladimir Putin took steps to punish those involved in threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Mexico, ordering the freezing of their Russian assets and a ban on travel into Russia.

The Russian Navy announced a guided-missile destroyer, the Archangel, was heading to the Gulf of Mexico in what it said was a long-planned training exercise and not a show of force.

The Edinburger legislature voted unanimously “to enter into the Republic of Texas with the rights of a citizen of the Republic of Texas”.

The vice-governor of Edinburg, home to Texas’ Gulf of Mexico military base in Port Isabel, said a referendum on the status would take place on March 16. He said all state property would be “nationalized”, the U.S. dollar could be adopted and Mexican troops would be treated as occupiers and be forced to surrender or leave.

The announcement, which diplomats said could not have been made without U.S. President Rand Paul’s approval, raised the stakes in the most serious east-west confrontation since the beginning of the Great Collapse.

U.S. stocks fell and the dollar weakened further after the news. Moody’s ratings agency said the stand-off was negative for Texas’ creditworthiness.

Texas said it would make it easier to give passports to native English speakers who have lived in Texas or the United States. Paul has cited the threat to American citizens to justify military action in the Caribbean in 2019 and now in Mexico.
Far from seeking a diplomatic way out of the crisis, Paul appears to have chosen to create facts on the ground before the East can agree on
more than token action against him.

UN leaders had been set to warn but not sanction the U.S. over its military intervention after Washington rebuffed Eastern diplomatic efforts to persuade it to pull forces in Edinburg, with a population of about 2 million, back to their bases. It was not immediately clear what impact the Edinburger moves would have.

French President Dominique Strauss-Kahn told reporters on arrival at the summit: “There will be the strongest possible pressure on Texas to begin lowering the tension and in the pressure there is, of course, eventual recourse to sanctions.”

A Edinburger legislature official said voters will be asked two questions: should Edinburg be part of the Republic of Texas, and should Edinburg return to an earlier constitution (2017) that gave the region more autonomy?

“If there weren’t constant threats from the current illegal Mexican authorities, maybe we would have taken a different path,” deputy legislature speaker Donald McTeague told reporters outside the legislature building in Edinburg’s main city, also named Edinburg.

“I think there was an annexation of Edinburg by Mexico, if we are going to call things by their name. Because of this mood and feeling we took the decision to join Texas. I think we will feel much more comfortable there.”

To provide some perspective on the Ukraine crisis, the imaginary article above was created by modifying this Reuters story (which has already been altered by Reuters via several updates since I downloaded it).
The Crimea was a part of the Russian state from 1783 — when Catherine the Great wrested it from the Ottomans — until 1954, when Nikita Khrushchev assigned it to the Ukrainian S.S.R. for internal Soviet political reasons.

Obama To Israel: Commit Suicide Or I Will Destroy You

 Today President Barack Hussein Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet.  Netanyahu will remind Obama of his pledge not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon and Obama will demand that Israel commit suicide by giving everything from the river to the sea to the Fakistinians.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the White House tomorrow, President Barack Obama will tell him that his country could face a bleak future -- one of international isolation and demographic disaster -- if he refuses to endorse a U.S.-drafted framework agreement for peace with the Palestinians. Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy. And the president will make the case that Netanyahu, alone among Israelis, has the strength and political credibility to lead his people away from the precipice.

In an hour long interview Thursday in the Oval Office, Obama, borrowing from the Jewish sage Rabbi Hillel, told me that his message to Netanyahu will be this: “If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?” He then took a sharper tone, saying that if Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach." He added, "It’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.”

Unlike Netanyahu, Obama will not address the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, this week -- the administration is upset with AIPAC for, in its view, trying to subvert American-led nuclear negotiations with Iran. In our interview, the president, while broadly supportive of Israel and a close U.S.-Israel relationship, made statements that would be met at an Aipac convention with cold silence.

Obama was blunter about Israel’s future than I've ever heard him. His language was striking, but of a piece with observations made in recent months by his secretary of state, John Kerry, who until this interview, had taken the lead in pressuring both Netanyahu and the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to agree to a framework deal. Obama made it clear that he views Abbas as the most politically moderate leader the Palestinians may ever have. It seemed obvious to me that the president believes that the next move is Netanyahu’s.

“There comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices,” Obama said. “Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank? Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? Do you perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more and more restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place restrictions on Arab-Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s traditions?”

During the interview, which took place a day before the Russian military incursion into Ukraine, Obama argued that American adversaries, such as Iran, Syria and Russia itself, still believe that he is capable of using force to advance American interests, despite his reluctance to strike Syria last year after President Bashar al-Assad crossed Obama's chemical-weapons red line.

“We’ve now seen 15 to 20 percent of those chemical weapons on their way out of Syria with a very concrete schedule to get rid of the rest,” Obama told me. “That would not have happened had the Iranians said, ‘Obama’s bluffing, he’s not actually really willing to take a strike.’ If the Russians had said, ‘Ehh, don’t worry about it, all those submarines that are floating around your coastline, that’s all just for show.’ Of course they took it seriously! That’s why they engaged in the policy they did.”

I returned to this particularly sensitive subject. “Just to be clear,” I asked, “You don’t believe the Iranian leadership now thinks that your ‘all options are on the table’ threat as it relates to their nuclear program -- you don’t think that they have stopped taking that seriously?”

Obama answered: “I know they take it seriously.”

How do you know? I asked. “We have a high degree of confidence that when they look at 35,000 U.S. military personnel in the region that are engaged in constant training exercises under the direction of a president who already has shown himself willing to take military action in the past, that they should take my statements seriously,” he replied. “And the American people should as well, and the Israelis should as well, and the Saudis should as well.”

I asked the president if, in retrospect, he should have provided more help to Syria’s rebels earlier in their struggle. “I think those who believe that two years ago, or three years ago, there was some swift resolution to this thing had we acted more forcefully, fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the conflict in Syria and the conditions on the ground there,” Obama said. “When you have a professional army that is well-armed and sponsored by two large states who have huge stakes in this, and they are fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict -- the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.”

He portrayed his reluctance to involve the U.S. in the Syrian civil war as a direct consequence of what he sees as America’s overly militarized engagement in the Muslim world: “There was the possibility that we would have made the situation worse rather than better on the ground, precisely because of U.S. involvement, which would have meant that we would have had the third, or, if you count Libya, the fourth war in a Muslim country in the span of a decade.”

Obama was adamant that he was correct to fight a congressional effort to impose more time-delayed sanctions on Iran just as nuclear negotiations were commencing: “There’s never been a negotiation in which at some point there isn’t some pause, some mechanism to indicate possible good faith,” he said. “Even in the old Westerns or gangster movies, right, everyone puts their gun down just for a second. You sit down, you have a conversation; if the conversation doesn’t go well, you leave the room and everybody knows what’s going to happen and everybody gets ready. But you don’t start shooting in the middle of the room during the course of negotiations.” He said he remains committed to keeping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and seemed unworried by reports that Iran's economy is improving.

On the subject of Middle East peace, Obama told me that the U.S.'s friendship with Israel is undying, but he also issued what I took to be a veiled threat: The U.S., though willing to defend an isolated Israel at the United Nations and in other international bodies, might soon be unable to do so effectively.

“If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction -- and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time,” Obama said. “If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.”

We also spent a good deal of time talking about the unease the U.S.'s Sunni Arab allies feel about his approach to Iran, their traditional adversary. I asked the president, “What is more dangerous: Sunni extremism or Shia extremism?”

I found his answer revelatory. He did not address the issue of Sunni extremism. Instead he argued in essence that the Shiite Iranian regime is susceptible to logic, appeals to self-interest and incentives.

“I’m not big on extremism generally,” Obama said. “I don’t think you’ll get me to choose on those two issues. What I’ll say is that if you look at Iranian behavior, they are strategic, and they’re not impulsive. They have a worldview, and they see their interests, and they respond to costs and benefits. And that isn’t to say that they aren’t a theocracy that embraces all kinds of ideas that I find abhorrent, but they’re not North Korea. They are a large, powerful country that sees itself as an important player on the world stage, and I do not think has a suicide wish, and can respond to incentives.”

This view puts him at odds with Netanyahu's understanding of Iran. In an interview after he won the premiership, the Israeli leader described the Iranian leadership to me as “a messianic apocalyptic cult.”

I asked Obama if he understood why his policies make the leaders of Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries nervous: “I think that there are shifts that are taking place in the region that have caught a lot of them off guard,” he said. "I think change is always scary."

Below is a complete transcript of our conversation. I’ve condensed my questions. The president’s answers are reproduced in full.

Finish reading here.

I think it is time that Netanyahu reminds Obama what happened the last time Jerusalem was divided.  How the Arabs shot at Israeli civilians from the walls of the Old City, creating a No-Man's Land between the two parts.  Of how no Jew was allowed to worship at the Kotel.  Of how one CANNOT defend a land only 9 miles wide.

There is only one reason that Barack Hussein Obama wants Israel to accept this "deal".  So he can destroy Israel and thus fulfilling his pledge to his Fakistinian friends that he would do everything in his power to destroy Israel and the Jewish people.

The Israeli Solution

The Israeli Solution is the new book scheduled to be released on March 4 by Carolyn Glick.  The following is written by Ms. Glick and explains parts of the book.

In its annual survey of American Jewry published last October, the American Jewish Committee found that 75 percent of American Jews agree with the statement, “The goal of the Arabs is not a peaceful two-state agreement with Israel, but rather the destruction of Israel.”

And yet, American Jews supported the establishment of a Palestinian state 50% to 47%.

Next week over 10,000 predominantly Jewish Americansupporters of Israel will gather in Washington at AIPAC’s annual policy conference. Given their high commitment to Israel, probably most of those gathered belong to the 47% of American Jews who opposed Palestinian statehood.

Yet at the conference they will embrace the two-state formula. And on March 4 they will go up to Capitol Hill and tell their representatives that they support it.

They will do so not because they are addled. They will do so because for the past 20 years all they have heard is that Israel has no alternative to the two-state plan.

Israel’s fervent and committed supporters at AIPAC have been told that Israel needs a Palestinian state more than the PLO does. Only by bringing such a state into existence in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem can Israel get the Palestinian demographic albatross off its neck.

These committed supporters of the Jewish state have been sternly lectured that Israel is doomed if it doesn’t give the Palestinians an outlet for their political impulses outside of Israel, because within a year or two there will be more Palestinians than Israelis west of the Jordan.

The same day AIPAC’s delegates meet with members of both houses of Congress, my new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East will be released by Crown Forum, a division of Random House.

In my book, I show that the demographic time bomb is a dud, and a malicious one at that.

In 1997, the head of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics Hassan Abu Libdeh told The New York Times that he was carrying out a census which would serve as a “civil intifada,” that is, as a statistical terror assault.

And he was right. The goal of terrorism is to force a target population to take actions it otherwise would not have taken. The goal of statistical warfare is to manipulate numbers to coerce a target society into taking actions that it would otherwise not take.

The Palestinian census claimed that by 2015, Arabs would be the majority west of the Jordan River. And once Jews were the minority, the Arabs could destroy Israel just by demanding the vote.

The Clinton administration, the US Jewish leadership and the Israeli Left rushed to embrace the findings, even though they were totally inconsistent with annual Palestinian population surveys the Israeli military government conducted from 1967 through 1996.

All crowed that true, the PLO still supports terrorism, but if Israel didn’t cough up the territories, it would be demographically overwhelmed.

It took seven years until an independent group of Israeli and American researchers studied the PLO data and exposed the fraud at their foundation. The American- Israeli Demographic Research Group showed that the Palestinian data inflated the Arab population by a whopping 50 percent.

The news for Israel has only gotten better in the intervening years. The Jewish fertility rate has increased as the Palestinian rates have collapsed along with those of the Muslim world as a whole. Israeli Jews now have higher fertility rates than the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, (3.04 vs. 2.91 children per woman). Israel’s immigration rate is high and rising. Palestinian emigration rates have skyrocketed over the past decade.

The demographic good news has percolated throughout Israeli society. And with the news, more and more Israeli politicians have come to favor applying Israeli law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria, just as Israel successfully applied its laws to united Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the past.

Most Likud members of Knesset and all members of the Bayit Yehudi party support partial or full implementation of Israeli law in the areas. 59% of Israeli Jews support such action as well and support doing so unilaterally.

Indeed, even leftist Israelis support Israel’s unilateral application of its laws to parts of Judea and Samaria. For instance, former ambassador to the US Michael Oren supports the unilateral withdrawal from parts of Judea and Samaria. But Oren foresees the retention of the major Israeli settlement blocs under Israeli law. In the absence of a peace deal, such a step can only be taken through the unilateral application of Israeli law to those areas.

In the current Knesset session, members have submitted two bills calling for the application of Israeli law to the large Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria and to the Jordan Valley, respectively.

But while all of this is going on in Israel, Israel’s supporters in the US remain in the dark about the existence of a better – facts based – alternative path for Israel.

In The Israeli Solution, I fill in the blanks that plague the American discourse on Israel and the Palestinians.

I provide a 360-degree analysis of a policy that I call The Israeli One-State Plan. That plan involves applying Israeli law – and through it Israeli sovereignty – throughout all of Judea and Samaria.

I divide the discussion into three parts. Part One provides the 90-year history of failure that has attended the two-state model, from the end of World War I through the present day. I also show how the US’s embrace of the two-state model has worked to blind US policymakers from both parties to the realities of the region and so guaranteed the failure of US Middle East policies.

Part Two presents the case for Israeli sovereignty from the perspectives of demography, international law, history and civil liberties.

Far from transforming the areas into a race-based state, as Israel’s opponents threaten, such a move by Israel will free the Palestinians from life under the PLO’s terror supporting kleptocracy and provide them with full civil and legal rights as permanent residents of Israel.

They will also have the right to apply for Israeli citizenship.

Even if all the Arabs of Judea and Samaria were to become Israeli citizens, Israel would retain a strong two thirds Jewish majority. And it would avert the only real demographic threat. That is the threat posed by a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria which would permit millions of hostile, foreign-born Arabs from Lebanon, Jordan and Syria to immigrate to its territory.

In Part Three, I discuss the probable responses of the Palestinians, the larger Arab world and the EU to a decision by Israel to apply its laws to Judea and Samaria and abandon the two-state policy model.

I also discuss how such a move will impact Israel and the United States.

Most delegates at AIPAC do not realize that Israelis have moved on from the failed two-state formula. It is my hope that in the year between this AIPAC conference and next year’s conference, they will read my book, and understand that they needn’t support the establishment of a Palestinian terror state. There is a better option. It is better for Israel. It is better for the Palestinians. And it is better for America.

If they do read my book, I hope it will open a long-belated discussion about Israel’s true options. If they do, I can assure them that next year’s AIPAC conference will be more realistic, and more optimistic than next week’s conclave.

SOURCE

I personally do not support the 2 state solution.  The Fakistinians don't want a separate nation.  They want Israel.  They have vowed to destroy Israel and murder every Jew in the world.  Yet our President demands that the Jews commit suicide to appease his Muslim masters.

I plan to purchase and read this book.  Then share the message with everyone.  I suggest all of you do so too.

Communists Announce Plans to Rescue Obama and The Democrats

Stolen from Faultline USA

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

How often have we told our readers that the Democratic Party is the party of Communism and Socialism? How many times have we noted the Marxist philosophy of Obama, of Hillary, et al?

Now, the Communist Party USA has stepped from the shadows and openly admitted their involvement with the American left including the Democratic Party and Obama.

They have announced their decision to aid the Democrats in holding on to the US Senate in the upcoming November election.

The Communist Party USA was formed in Chicago in 1919. Recently, Communist Party USA Chairman Sam Webb spoke to his fellow travelers by way of a web streaming event entitled: “Taking care of the future: from here to socialism.”

Mr. Webb said: “We can talk about shortening the work week, green jobs, restructuring the economy, we can talk about the de-militarization of the economy and putting those people back to work in jobs that are productive,” Webb said. “The starting point has to be this immediate engagement, but once we do that many things become possible such as more radical demands.”--SOURCE

Mr. Webb explained that since Obama had become President Americans were more willing to accept socialism and communism.

Mr. Webb went on to say the following: “The good news is the same hang-ups or stereotypes that people had 30 to 40 years ago are not so evident today,” he said. “Growing numbers of people are ready to have a conversation about socialism. There have been public opinion polls that indicate that substantial numbers have more confidence in socialism than capitalism.”

“We have to let people know what our vision is. The climate in the country is different. We can have a different conversation than we could have 30 to 40 years ago, even 20 years ago. Socialism is no longer a white-hot word, people are willing to talk about it.” — SOURCE

Webb said Communists are planning an effort to unite left-wing groups to protect Democrats and President Obama from losing the US Senate to tea party candidates or, more precisely – conservative candidates.

We suggest you read the entire article at WND.COM.

It has not been that long ago when the democrats would refute the claim by conservatives that the Democratic Party was, in fact, a socialist party. No longer. The Democrats have gone from covert to overt. They have slithered out of the shadows into the light and their true colors, the hammer and sickle, can be clearly seen and they can no longer deny their embrace of the communist/socialist dogma.

Recently my teeth have been set on edge as I listened to Obama’s rhetoric about “fairness,” in this or that, and his use of the words “fair share” to drive a wedge between the American classes, and especially the words, or phrase, “income inequality” which seals the deal.

When a nation seeks income equality it is accepting socialism as its core philosophy. Income inequality is the clarion call for redistribution of a nation’s wealth. It is as simple and as basic as that.

Demonstrating his communist core belief, Obama has led the charge to teach the low/info voters to hate the “patricians” and the “plutocrats” – the very people who financed -- and continue to finance -- America’s success as the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

Our very own communist President believes -- and preaches -- that wealthy Americans must be brought low and their wealth confiscated and redistributed to the – ahem – less fortunate among us. We have now seen the President’s abuse of the power of the Executive Order. Obama is intent on diluting democratic freedom in America by infusing socialism/communism into every agency and administration under the control of the executive branch of the government.

Why wouldn’t the Communist Party be proud of their man in the White House? Why wouldn’t the Communist Party pull out all the stops to support him and his communist/socialist minions in the US Senate?

America is sinking ever deeper into the muck and mire of communism. If we are unable to extricate her she will die just as all the other nations that have cast their lot with socialism and communism.

So don’t be surprised that the Communist Party USA will be working to rescue the Democratic Party this November. The democrats are a part of the socialist/communist movement.

As soon as Americans stop fooling themselves into thinking and believing that America is NOT a communist/socialist nation, then we can begin to throw off the shackles of dictatorial government and the oppression of the new American police state we have become and return America to her constitutional government.

First Judea And Samaria, Then The Old City, Now The Kotel.

With each passing day the PA adds a demand to their growing list of demands in order to have a 2-State Solution.  First it was the whole of Judea and Samaria, the old Law of Return, No buffer zone, the Jordan Valley, East Jerusalem, and now:  The Kotel.

A top Palestinian Authority official said that the PA was demanding sovereignty over all areas of Jerusalem Israel liberated in the Six Day War, including the Kotel (Western Wall).

Speaking to Channel Ten, Mahmoud al-Habbash, Minister of Holy Places in the PA, said that “there will be no peace until the end of the Israeli occupation that began in 1967. Every piece of land that Israel conquered then belongs to the Palestinians.” That includes Jerusalem, “the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Western Wall.”

Asked what would happen if Jews wished to pray at the Wall, al-Habbash said “they will be welcome, there will be no problem. There will be no limitations on freedom of religion and worship. Religious ceremonies are one thing, and politics are another.”

Under the Oslo Accords, Israelis are supposed to have access to several religious sites in PA-controlled areas of Judea and Samaria. In actuality, however, Jews are almost completely banned from these sites, including the Tomb of Joseph in Shechem and the Tomb of Joshua in Kifl Hares. Jews are rarely allowed to visit these sites, and then only under very strict security conditions. Several Jews, including Rabbi Hillel Lieberman h”yd, have been killed in area of Joseph's Tomb.

With that, Channel Ten quoted sources in the PA that most of the issues brought up in the negotiations being conducted by US Secretary of State John Kerry, including land swaps, have been resolved. But the Palestinians are insisting that all areas of Jerusalem liberated in the Six Day War, including the Jewish Quarter, the Kotel, and Jewish neighborhoods such as French Hill, Ramat Eshkol, and Har Homa be placed under PA sovereignty. Kerry has spent much time and effort in trying to come to a compromise on Jerusalem, but has so far failed, PA sources said.

Speaking to Channel Ten, the PA's Jerusalem Minister, Abu-Ala, said that the current round of negotiations was one of the most intense ever between Israel and the PA, thanks to the strenuous efforts of Kerry to get the two sides to agree to a negotiation framework.

But he said that effort came with a risk.

“Given the intensity with which the Americans are approaching this, there will probably be undesirable consequences if the talks fail.”

SOURCE

Giving John Kerry's desire for the Nobel Peace Prize I wouldn't put it pass him to add this to the list of demands he will try to push onto Israel.

I do believe it is time for Israel to leave the negotiations permanently.  They are getting nothing but a piece of paper for Obama to wave in the air crying:  "Peace in our lifetime!"  And Israel will get the shaft as the Fakistinians will use their newly formed nation to finish the job Hitler started in 1933.

Iranian Chihuahua Barks Loudly At American Rottweiler.

It is usually amusing to watch a Chihuahua bark at a Rottweiler.  One knows that if the Rottweiler gets too annoyed at the Chihuahua, he will raise his paw and swipe the yapping dog.  That would do the trick and the Chihuahua would get the hint that to leave the Rottweiler alone.

Iran is behaving like a Chihuahua.  They have gotten the restrictive sanctions lifted without doing anything.  And now Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy Commander Ali Fadavi has decided to impersonate a Chihuahua and bark at the United States. 

On Sunday, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy Commander Ali Fadavi said that the US knows that its aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf would be sunk if it launched a military strike on Iran.

“The Americans can sense by all means how their warships will be sunk with 5,000 crews and forces in combat against Iran and how they should find its hulk in the depths of the sea,” said Fadavi, according to Fars news agency.

“They cannot hide themselves in the sea since the entire Middle East region, western Europe, the Persian Gulf, the Sea of Oman and the Straits of Hormuz are monitored by us and there is no place for them to hide.”

Also Sunday, Iran’s Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan touted the Iranian military’s ability to respond to an American attack, Fars reported.

“The Iranian Armed Forces are an intertwined and coherent complex that can give a decisive response to any threat at any level and any place under the command of the Commander-in-Chief,” Dehqan said in a ceremony marking the 35th anniversary of the revolution that brought the current Islamic regime to power.

“The enemy can never assess and think of the range of the response given by the powerful and mighty Armed Forces of the Islamic Iran,” he added.

The bellicose rhetoric follows Saturday’s announcement by an Iranian admiral that Iran had dispatched warships to the North Atlantic, while Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denounced the Americans as liars who, while professing to be friends of Iran, would bring down his regime if they could. He also said it was “amusing” that the US thought Iran would reduce its “defensive capabilities.”

On Friday, Iranian state TV ran a documentary featuring a computerized video of Iran’s drones and missiles bombing Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ben Gurion Airport and the Dimona nuclear reactor in a hypothetical retaliation for an Israeli or American strike on the Islamic Republic.

Iranian drones and missiles are also shown carrying out simulated strikes on the American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, downing American aircraft and striking American military targets in the Persian Gulf.

The film, entitled “The Nightmare of Vultures,” opens with Supreme Leader Khamenei addressing military academy graduates in 2011, warning: “Anybody who thinks of attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran should be prepared to receive strong slaps and iron fists from the Armed Forces.”




Click here if video fails to load.

“And America, its regional puppets and its guard dog – the Zionist regime – should know that the response of the Iranian nation to any kind of aggression, attacks or even threats will be a response that will make them collapse from within,” the film shows him saying.

Set to dramatic music, the video shows Iranian drones and missiles carrying out strikes against Tel Aviv’s Kikar Hamedina square, the Azrieli Towers skyscrapers, and the IDF’s Kirya central command complex, as well as Ben Gurion International Airport, Haifa’s Technion, several army and air force bases, and the nuclear reactor in Dimona.

The strike on the Israel’s central command building is shown taking place while former prime minister Ehud Olmert and former defense minister Amir Peretz — who served in that capacity during the 2006 Second Lebanon War — are inside convening a meeting.

SOURCE

I guess that nobody has ever told Ali Fadavi what the might of the United States Navy is.  And I'm just talking about the Navy.  Forget combining it with the United States Marines, Army and Air Force.  The US Navy could wipe out Iran just by itself.

The Warrior Song - Leviathan


Click here if the video fails to load.

It is a shame that the United States is lead by that coward Barack Hussein Obama.  For the Iranians could destroy every ship in the Navy and most of our coastal cities and he would do nothing.  In fact he would surrender to them.  For if we had a real leader he would remind this idiot that any attack on a US ship would result in Tehran become a glowing crater.

Kerry Playing With Fire In Middle East ~~~ By J. D. Longstreet

Stolen From Faultline USA

In a few days or a few weeks, the Obama Administration will present Israel and the so-called Palestinians with something referred to as a "framework agreement."

The diplomats, (diplomats = People paid to lie for their country) explain that it is called a framework because the eventual peace agreement would be built upon this agreement. In other words, it is the framework for the eventual peace agreement between Israel and the so-called Palestinians.

Uh-huh.

This "agreement" is bad for Israel and bad for the US. Here's why:

Far from bringing peace to Israel and the so-called Palestinians, it could just as likely bring renewed fighting between the two and more trouble for the US.

In its arrogance, the Obama Administration wants this agreement signed before the end of the year (2014). The ridiculousness of this is laughable. Once again, the US has amateurs at work defusing a bomb.

Already, Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, has declared that “it is not going to happen.” SOURCE

Let's take a look at the outlandish terms of the framework agreement.

"Kerry’s agreement mentions a Palestinian state with borders based on the 1949 Armistice lines and with land swaps between Israel and the PA. 75 to 80 percent of the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria would remain in their homes even after a permanent agreement." SOURCE

There is said to be a reference to the PA’s "incitement" against Israel and a reference to compensation for Jewish refugees who came from Arab countries. Each side would recognize the other as a nation state. and the two sides would announce the end of the conflict.

From israelnationalnews.com we learn this: "US Secretary of State John Kerry is about to present a plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) that will call for a phased Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria based on the 1949 lines, with "unprecedented" security arrangements in the strategic Jordan Valley, writes Thomas Friedman in the New York Times – one of the journalists considered most close to the Obama administration.

The Israeli withdrawal will not include certain settlement blocs, but Israel will compensate the Arab side for this with Israeli territory. The deal will call for “Palestine” to have a capital in Arab East Jerusalem and to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. It will not include any right of return for Palestinian refugees into pre-1967 Israel, Friedman says." SOURCE

So, Kerry and Obama want to divide the city of Jerusalem ... AGAIN. It is reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu adamantly rejects the division of the city of Jerusalem.

Oh, and Kerry's plan calls for Israeli troops to patrol the Jordan Valley for some years into the future. As you would expect the so-called Palestinians adamantly reject that.

Netanyahu is walking on egg shells in even considering this "agreement." It could easily tear apart his coalition. Already, tension within the Israeli political community has been ratcheting upward for at least a week upon this writing.

On the other hand, if Netanyahu says no to the plan, then European nations could invoke a boycott on Israeli goods to "punish" Israel for not agreeing to the Obama/Kerry plan. Yes. This IS the same Europe where anti-Semitism runs rampant -- even today. There is an excellent article entitled: "White House Is Weeks Away From Imposing Middle East Peace Framework – What You Need To Know" at Prophecy News Watch that explains the "agreement" in much more detail. We urge you to read it. You'll find it here.

Now, it is important that the world understand this ... neither side wants peace now. Somehow, Kerry seems to have missed this tiny detail. Come on, folks. If either side truly wanted peace they could, and would, work it out between themselves without the meddling of the US. They've done it three times in the past: Peace treaty with Egypt, another with Jordan, and a mutual recognition deal between Israel and the PLO. See what I mean?

The so-called Palestinian government is so divided as to be almost useless. There is Hamas ruling in Gaza, and Mahmoud Abbas, in charge of the government on the West Bank -- or what government there is there! As a "non-member observer state," in the UN General Assembly, the so-called Palestinians are reported to be ready to take Israel to the International Criminal Court any day now. Does this sound like a group ready to talk peace? Hardly.

This is a war that has been raging since Abraham and his two sons walked the hills, valleys and seashores of what we call the Holy Land today. It is not about to be settled by April 30th, or even by the end of the year 2014. In fact, we have every reason to believe that it will intensify touching off even more conflicts within, and without, the region leading, eventually, to World War III.

So, at the risk of bruising Mr. Kerry's pride and denting his arrogance, we can comfortable say that the "Framework Agreement" isn't worth the paper it is written upon. But -- don't be surprised if in a few weeks we have another Neville Chamberlain moment with Kerry waving a piece of paper over his head shouting: "Peace in or time!" We never seem to learn, do we?

Saint Paul said: "The way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:17–18) That was about 2,000 years ago. Not much has changed.

Obama's New Year Resolution

A Dream Come True

One can dream!

Palestinians: Is Abbas Being Asked to Sign His Death Warrant?

An article by Ali Salim pointing out why there won't be a peace deal.  In doing so, Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen will have given up any refugee status for the Fakistinians, and billions of dollars in "Aid" money.  Then again without an agreement the Fakistinians will be cut off of billions of dollars from the US and EU.

The European and American attempts to impose an academic and economic boycott on Israel increase in direct proportion to the signs that the Palestinian-Israel peace process is sinking into the mud. Boycotts, however, will simply make the Israelis more obstinate and worsen the situation. President Obama tried to reassure Israel recently by promising that the future final status agreement would not turn the West Bank into "a replica of Gaza." He was referring to the rockets the Palestinians began launching from the Gaza Strip into Israeli territory as soon as Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, and stressed that in any peace agreement, the United States would not allow another Palestinian terrorist state, this one in the West Bank, to shell Israel.

The Israelis, who have already agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state bordering on Israel, justifiably demand that it be demilitarized and that Israel itself be responsible for security along the Jordan River. Their demand is based on past experience and meant to prevent rockets, mortar shells, explosives and arms in general from being smuggled into the West Bank. The Palestinians' outright rejection the West's demands might well raise suspicions in the objective observer. The Palestinians claim that Israel has a peace agreement with Jordan and therefore should have no fear that weapons will be smuggled into the West Bank. Such a claim is made only by those who conveniently forget about the thousands of rockets and other weapons used by Palestinian terrorists to attack Israel, and that have been smuggled into the Strip from Egypt, which also has a peace agreement with Israel.

Mahmoud Abbas not only refuses to recognize the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jews, but, notably, he demands that Israel be forced to absorb Palestinians as part of the so-called "right of return," instead of demanding, more naturally, that they be absorbed into the future Palestinian state -- all the while demanding that there be no Jews in the Palestinian state.

What the Palestinians do not yet understand is that the West is losing both interest in and patience for the Palestinian cause. Millions of refugees, an unprecedented number since the 1930s, are massed at borders and seeking ports of entry all over the world. Today, millions of starving Syrian refugees -- having become burdens threatening the internal security and economy of countries such as Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and even Bulgaria -- are freezing in cardboard cartons and flimsy tents.

Millions of Africans crowd into leaky boats and then drown seeking the shores of Europe, where they hope to find a decent living, while others are interned and humiliated by the Italian authorities on the island of Lampedusa. No one seems to care that in the Arab countries, masses of Muslims die in terrorist attacks at the hands of other Muslims.

In the meantime, industriously ignoring these humanitarian catastrophes, the West closely focuses on what it likes to call "finding a solution for the Palestinian problem." This focus has nothing to do with concern for the Palestinian people; it is rather a symptom of the West's complete inability to cope with the world's genuine refugee problems.

Only few of the real Arab refugees from the 1948 War in Palestine remain, and would be at least 65 years old today if their families had left when the Arab leadership called on the Arabs to flee from Palestine. All those who fled were promised that once the Arab armies won the war and slaughtered or expelled the Jews, they would return to their homes and could loot and despoil Jewish property as they pleased. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs therefore abandoned their homes in 1948 and settled in the neighboring countries, eventually engendering millions of descendants who have built their lives in the host countries and need only to receive citizenship.

The United States and the Arab countries perpetuate the issue of the so-called "Palestinian refugees" with the aid they give to relief organizations, primarily UNRWA. They waste time, money and energy on the Palestinians, in both "Palestine" and other countries, and delay interminably the day when the descendants of the original refugees become citizens of the Arab countries in which they now live, they live. It should be recalled that the Arabs who did not flee from Palestine in 1948, now live in Israel where they make up one-fifth of the population, hold equal rights to the Jews there, have their own political parties, members of Knesset, judges on the Supreme Court, senior diplomatic posts, serve in the army only if the so wish, and are welcomed in all leading professions, including professorships in university and as senior physicians in Israeli hospitals.

Perpetuating the status of "refugee" to five generations of their descendants means the Palestinians and the West continue to foster the false hope of the "right of return," making it increasingly difficult to offer these poor souls -- whose ancestors chose to chose to displace themselves - the right to a productive life, as all other refugees and their descendants enjoy in the countries to which they chose to go.

The Americans and Europeans cynically manipulate the Palestinians, to whom they are nothing more than insignificant pawns in the plot to prolong and escalate the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to justify their continued involvement in the Middle East; in reality, their motives are in no way humanitarian.

The lack of a solution for the Palestinian problem is a tragedy; the situation should sadden every Arab with a conscience. The Palestinian leadership and interested parties throughout the Arab-Muslim world delude the Palestinians into thinking that some day in the slight-of-hand foggy future they will return to "Palestine," that is, the territory of the State of Israel. They manipulate the Palestinians even as it is perfectly clear to the entire world that the Jews will never agree to absorb the millions of descendants of the 1948 Palestinians refugees who today live in the Arab countries: to do so would mean destroying Israel by flooding it with its enemies. If the West were genuinely interested in peace in the Middle East, its top priority would be to clarify the situation for the Palestinians and campaign for their citizenship in the Arab world. It is clear, therefore, that the ultimate goal of the West, and particularly Europe, is to destroy Israel by using the descendants of these Palestinians as weapons -- first of displacement, then extermination. One need only look at how Muslims are currently treating Christians, as well as other Muslims -- as there no longer any Jews to speak of; as the saying goes: "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people" -- in countries as diverse as the Sudan, Nigeria, Iraq, Mauritania and Egypt.

International law does not allow refugee status to be inherited, but both the West and our Palestinian brothers continue to use the unjustified and incidentally illegal status of refugees as profitable political-economic merchandise. The corrupt agencies of the United Nations, particularly UNRWA, perpetuate and fatten themselves on the obscene amounts of money flowing into the "Palestinian problem," which for years has not been a humanitarian issue. The Palestinian problem is nowhere on the agenda of the Arab countries, which are caught up in the internal chaos created by the Arab "Spring," and instead has become a lucrative economic project for a whole series of racketeers, rob the millions of genuine refugees around the globe, many of who are also Arabs, of their rights.

The situation in Europe is complex and complicated. Thousands of immigrants knock on the gates of the West in search of employment and a better life, even though the West itself is on the brink of bankruptcy. To them, compared to the countries they are fleeing, the West still looks like Paradise. The Europeans have also muddied the definition of "refugees seeking political asylum" -- people who genuinely need protection from persecution. Those who go Westward in search of work cross many poor countries where they are not in danger yet claim, unjustly, that they are refugees fleeing for their lives. This confusion also makes it difficult for the West to solve the problem of millions of genuine refugees who clearly are in imminent danger.

The worst problem of all, however, is the cynical game of manipulating world public opinion played by the rival Palestinian leaders in their undying efforts to perpetuate the Palestinian issue, which has now become Big Business, to ensure it is never resolved. Not only is Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, not considered the legitimate leader of the West Bank and was never elected in a fair and honest election, only a manipulated one but the Palestinians dispersed among the various Arab countries, and especially the West Bank and Gaza, do not consider him as representing them - as well as opposing any political arrangement with Israel for fear it might interfere with the glittering hypnotic promises of their return to "Palestine."

Mahmoud Abbas undoubtedly knows that the instant he signs an agreement with Israel, the Palestinian terrorist organizations will assassinate him. No Palestinian will agree to an arrangement that would limit his return to the future Palestinian state, currently the territory of the State of Israel.

No Palestinian leader will recognize Israel and certainly not one of them will agree to the final, definite end of the conflict. Mahmoud Abbas' refusal to recognize Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people, his refusal to waive "the refugees' right of return," his refusal to stop adding to his endless list of demands to end the conflict and his refusal to allow Israel to oversee the Jordan River are all proof that the Palestinians' plan to destroy the State of Israel has not been altered since its inception, even if perhaps its methodology has been tweaked from time to time.

The real tragedy is that nowhere on the Palestinian horizon is there a mechanism in place for a democratic way to end the conflict. Many Palestinians favor the violent, radical Salafist-jihadi agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, while others reject the Islamist agenda and its lifestyle. The conflict between the two has trapped and dead-ended the Palestinians.

The Gaza Strip has been under the control of Islamists for years, and they are gradually taking over towns and cities in the West Bank. It is this situation that prevents the fractured Palestinian leadership from reaching an internal reconciliation and constructing a model for united governance that could end the confrontation between the Jews and the Palestinians. It is clear that if elections were held today in the West Bank, Hamas and other Salafist-jihadi organizations would win. It would seem there is only one model around which Palestinians can unite: the desire to end not their conflict but rather the State of Israel. The Jews are fully aware of the Palestinian model and refuse to accept any arrangement that will endanger their security.

Thus, tragically, Palestinian politics are at the moment leading the Palestinian people noplace. It was recently made known that the Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip, who lob rockets into Israel and mine the security fence separating Israel from Gaza, are currently having logistic problems of electricity, concrete, fuel and food -- the result of flooding caused by recent severe rainstorms. Faced with insurmountable problems, the Hamas leaders turned, indirectly, to Israel for help.

For years Hamas has been guilty of the criminal neglect of the people who live under its rule, and now its leaders are calling for help, claiming that they are "besieged" -- by the Egyptians as well as the Israelis -- and that they are facing a "humanitarian crisis," and are prepared to accept aid from Israel, but only secretly!

Since the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip, Hamas has poured millions of tons of concrete into building tunnels the sole purpose of which is to provide easy access for terrorist operatives seeking to infiltrate into Israel. Hamas could have used the concrete to build houses, schools and hospitals, but instead diverted it to reinforcing terrorism. Hamas evidently far prefers to spend its billions on weapons it can use against Israel rather than on the agriculture, economy, health and welfare of the people who are dependent on it.

In the meantime, while the Palestinian Authority announced that it did not intend to pay the salaries of its Gazan employees, it was Israel that recently agreed to help Hamas out of its difficulties and provide it with fuel, concrete, medicine and food, despite the fact that throughout the years Hamas has killed hundreds of Israelis with its rockets, bombs and suicide bombers and is still overtly planning to wipe Israel off the map. How lucky for the Palestinians that their enemies are the Jews. While the Palestinian and Islamic terrorist organizations plan their attacks on Israeli civilians, the government of the Israeli occupation, despite the apparent indifference of their leaders, regards the Palestinians themselves as human beings.

The rampant mismanagement by Europe, the UN's treatment of the Palestinians and Mahmoud Abbas's floundering and weakness as a policy-maker have prepared the ground for a general takeover of the Palestinian issue by radical Islamic elements, and it will occur in the foreseeable future. On the West Bank it is claimed that in the meantime, only Israeli intelligence, which props up Abbas, has prevented the Islamists from taking complete control.

It is shocking, but not surprising, that in such a complex situation people such as the EU's Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry are trying to force Israel to give up assets critical to its security. They are exerting their pressure in the wrong direction: they should instead campaign for citizenship for the Palestinians in the Arab countries, a quest that would quickly clear their heads of the nonsense of the "return;" stop the tide of money flowing into UNRWA and end the fiction of the "Palestinian refugees."

As the Arab countries -- relatively new artificial creations temporarily pasted together with the lies of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, disintegrate into their original warring tribes and sects -- Ashton, Kerry, et al are nevertheless trying to create yet another artificial state, "Palestine," which will quickly become another Islamist country, officially refusing, as a matter of policy, to recognize the State of Israel and seeking to destroy it.

At his last meeting with Kerry, Abbas rejected the Israeli demand for security control along the Jordan River. Abbas and his supporters are planning to smuggle weapons into the West Bank from Jordan and to transfer them to the local Palestinian terrorists who will use them to attack Israel from the east -- exactly as Hamas began attacking from the south the instant the IDF withdrew from the Gaza Strip. Obama's recent assurances that the United States will not allow the West Bank to become "a replica of the Gaza Strip" are as valid as his assurances regarding other cardinal issues, such as Syria and Iran -- further "replicas of promises" never kept.

SOURCE

Before he ran for the Presidency Barack Hussein Obama promised his Arab friends that he would do everything he could to have Palestine from the river to the sea.  Until this year he couldn't work on that due to the fact he needed Jewish money for his reelection.  (Jews would vote for Hitler if he had a "D" after his name.)  Now he cannot run for the Presidency again and he doesn't need the Jews.  He can throw them into the camps.  Thus he will try to fulfill his promise to his Arab friends and save any legacy his Presidency might have.  And in the process he will be instrumental to the murder of over 6 million more Jews.  That should make his and Michelle's day!

What the Palestinians And Arabs Think of Kerry's New Ideas

From Gatestone Institute

The Palestinian Authority does not like U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's latest ideas for peace between the Palestinians and Israelis.

The Palestinians especially do not like Kerry's proposal that Israel maintain a military presence in the Jordan Valley if and when a Palestinian state is established next to Israel.

Kerry, however, does not seem to be impressed with the Palestinians' rejection of his ideas. He appears convinced that immense pressure on the Palestinians will eventually force them to succumb.

Palestinian Authority officials complained this week that Kerry is obviously not taking them seriously. "Although the Palestinian Authority leadership has turned down his ideas, Kerry continues to exert heavy pressure on us because he thinks he can impose his will on us," remarked a senior Palestinian official in Ramallah. "Of course, Kerry is living in an illusion if he thinks we would change our position."

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who briefed Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on December 21, repeated his opposition to Kerry's ideas. Before that, Abbas sent a letter to President Barack Obama expressing reservations about Kerry's proposals.

Abbas has even won the backing of the Arab League for his stance. So it is not only the Palestinians who are now saying no to Kerry, but the Arab countries too. "The U.S. proposals achieved Israeli expansionist demands, and guaranteed [Israel's] continued control of [the Jordan Valley] on the security pretext," said a statement released by the Arab League.

Arab League Secretary-General Nabil al-Araby said that not one Israeli soldier could stay in the West Bank.

The Arab League's position is a severe blow to Kerry's ongoing efforts to persuade the Palestinian Authority to accept his ideas. Having won the backing of the Arab countries, Abbas now feels more confident to say no to Kerry and his proposals.

When Kerry next returns to the region, Abbas will once again tell him that he doesn't accept his ideas, particularly in the wake of the Arab League's having also rejected them.

Abbas, however, seems to have a problem not only with the idea of maintaining an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley.

A Palestinian official, who also said that Abbas had won backing from the Arab countries for his stance, revealed that Abbas continues to stick to his positions on a variety of issues pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- positions that openly contadict most of the Israeli and American demands.

The official summed up Abbas's position as follows:

• No to a demilitarized Palestinian state;
• No to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state;
• No to a solution that does not include all of east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state;
• No to another interim agreement with Israel and, of course,
• No to the presence of any Israeli soldiers in the Jordan Valley.

The only two things that Abbas and the Arab League are prepared to accept is a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines that does not exceed three years, and an exchange of land "equal in size and value" with Israel in cases where Israel retains any land beyond the pre-1967 lines.

Until recently, the Palestinian rejection of Kerry's ideas was expressed in a rather polite manner.

In the past few days, however, senior Palestinian Authority officials have begun launching a scathing attack on Kerry, with some accusing him of "endorsing" Israel's position on most issues related to the conflict with Israel.

PLO Secretary-General Yasser Abed Rabbo said that Kerry's proposals on security will lead to the "total failure" of the peace talks with Israel. Kerry's ideas, he added, have provoked a "real crisis." Abed Rabbo said that Kerry "only wants to win over the Israelis and [allow] settlement expansion at our expense."

In an interview with Voice of Palestine radio, Abed Rabbo continued his unprecedented criticism of both Kerry and his proposals. "Washington does not have the right to determine where our borders would be," he declared. "We won't allow Israel to slice off any parts of our land. If the Americans want, they can give Israel parts of California and Washington. This land belongs to the Palestinians."

The Arab League's rejection of Kerry's ideas not only complicates his efforts to achieve a deal between Palestinians and Israelis, but also ties Abbas's hands. It is hard to see how Abbas would be able to retract his position now that the Arab League has also rejected Kerry's ideas.

Kerry will now have to launch a new diplomatic campaign to convince the Arab League to change its position. And for the Arab countries to do that really would take a miracle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 I give Obama until next April before he becomes so angry with Israel that he orders an attack.  It has been revealed that he promised the Fakistinians everything from the river to the sea in 2007.  It also has been known that the Obamas have a deep hatred of Israel and the Jewish people.  If it wasn't for Jewish money, he would have made that known earlier.

It is also known in Israel that Obama had been stringing Netanyahu along.  He never had a notion of attacking Iran.  In fact he is dropping Israel as an ally and picking up Iran.  So much for his promises.

There will come a time when Israel will attack Iran.  Obama will help condemn Israel, then lead the attack on that nation.  The only question left is what will he do to the 6 million+ Jews living in the United States?