Bolton: Blame Obama for Palestinian State Status

December 12, 2012

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton blamed the Obama administration for failing to block the U.N.’s defacto recognition Thursday of a sovereign Palestinian state, saying the White House never took the issue “seriously.”
john-bolton“This is a reflection of an ongoing failure by the Obama administration to take this issue seriously,” Bolton told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren Thursday night, adding that the president should have moved more forcefully in October, when the Palestinian Authority was made a member of the U.N. and its affiliated organizations.
“It never should have been. Palestine is not a state,” Bolton said. “That’s a fact. And when the U.N. engages in this kind of activity, it just shows a real lack of administration commitment to stop it from happening.”
Bolton said the Obama administration could have taken a page from the playbook of former Secretary of State James Baker more than two decades ago when a similar effort to change the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s observer status at the U.N. from an “entity” to a “non-member state,” the same status held by the Vatican.
“We’ve been through this before. We did this 20 years ago and defeated the Palestinians,” Bolton said. “And this is how we did it. Secretary of State Jim Baker issued a statement saying he would recommend to the president that the United States make no further contributions, voluntary or assessed, to any international organization which makes any change in the PLO’s status as an observer organization.
“If the administration had simply done what Jim Baker did 20 years ago, this thing would have been deader than a doornail,” Bolton added.
The former ambassador, now a Fox News contributor, said he sees plenty of trouble ahead as the United States, Israel and other nations react to the new Palestinian status.
Pointing to Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has threatened to introduce legislation to cut off U.N. aid, Bolton suggested that other members of Congress could move as well to end funding for other U.N.-affiliated groups with which the Palestinians can now claim association.
He said Israel should also prepare seriously for a move by the Palestinians to take complaints about Israel to the international criminal court now that they have standing in the U.N.
He noted that it would be “a big mistake on their part” for Israel to downplay the problems that such a move could create.
Read more at NEWSMAX
{ Newscenter}


Israel Halts Payments to Palestinians, Adding to Fiscal Woes

November 24, 2011

All the countries that encouraged Palestine to break their promises can pay the Palestine Authorities bill now if they really care, but I doubt they do. Lip service doesn’t pay the bills. If the world cares so much for the Palestinians then put up or shut up. oh… but they don’t love the Arabs, they merely hate Jews.

(NYTIMES) RAMALLAH, West Bank — The Palestinian Authority, in over its head financially as foreign donors renege on pledges and local banks have reached their limits, has an even more serious money problem: Israel is refusing to transfer tax and customs payments that account for two-thirds of its revenue. For three weeks, the Israeli government has pointedly withheld the transfer of these payments, amounting to more than $100 million, to express opposition to the Palestinian Authority’s recent policy of pursuing United Nations membership and renewing power-sharing talks with Hamas.
The impact of Israel’s decision not to make its deposit could be devastating, according to Palestinian and international officials.
“With each passing day, the Palestinian Authority becomes weaker, and is fast approaching the day when it becomes completely incapacitated,” Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said in an interview this week.
Oussama Kanaan, the International Monetary Fund’s mission chief for the West Bank and Gaza, said that unless Israel changed its approach, salaries due on Dec. 1 that support one million Palestinians would go unpaid.
“Part of the reason why people have not revolted is that there has been some progress and security, and the living standard has been going up,” he said. “But if they cannot get their wages paid and they have high expectations about independence, they will see this as a sign of weakness and incompetence by the Palestinian Authority.”
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations and senior American officials have contacted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in recent days, urging him to release the money. Tony Blair, the representative of the so-called quartet — the Middle East peacemaking group composed of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations — added his voice to the criticism on Wednesday, saying, “Only those who oppose peace and Israeli-Palestinian cooperation benefit from the withholding of P.A. funds.”
An aide to Mr. Netanyahu said the point was to “incentivize bad things not happening.” By that, he meant the Palestinian Authority’s pursuit of full membership in the United Nations and its planned talks with Hamas, expected to start on Thursday in Cairo.
But the aide said that if the Palestinians did not move to join other United Nations agencies — he said they had indicated a willingness to back off for now — and the Cairo meeting produced nothing more than promises of more meetings, the likelihood was that the money would be released by next week.
“We are trying to send a clear message,” he said.
Another Israeli official said that when the decision was made to withhold payment around Nov. 1, there had been several troubling developments from Israel’s point of view. First, he said, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority said nothing after a rocket from Gaza killed someone in southern Israel. Then Mr. Abbas seemed to praise the abduction of an Israeli soldier five years ago and said he would never recognize a Jewish state. Finally, the Palestinians joined Unesco — the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — a move that Israel rejected as another unilateral step toward statehood.
“We wanted to make clear this could not be business as usual,” the official said. “The idea is to influence Palestinian decision-making.”
The transfer of the more than $100 million a month is not, in theory, optional. It is mandated by the 1994 portion of the Oslo agreement. The money is made up of customs duties that Israel collects for Palestinian orders arriving here through Israeli ports, value-added taxes on major Palestinian purchases of Israeli goods and excise taxes on Israeli fuel bought by the Palestinians.
But the Israelis argue that by approaching the United Nations and engaging with Hamas, the Palestinian Authority is breaking its end of the Oslo accords, freeing Israel to do the same.
The United States has suspended tens of millions of dollars it has pledged to the Palestinian Authority because of Congressional objections that mirror those of Israel.
Israel has withheld payments before, notably during the 2001-2 uprising and again in 2006, when the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority and Hamas briefly formed a unity government. Foreign donors, mostly from the Arab world and the European Union, made up the difference.
That pattern has eased concerns here.
“The Authority has never collapsed, and it will not do so now,” , the chief executive of the Palestinian Stock Exchange, said in an interview. “The Arab Spring obliges the Arab countries to act in ways they are not used to. And the Israelis can rant and rave all they want. In the end, it is in their interest to help us.”
Indeed, it is widely agreed in the Israeli military establishment that a functioning Palestinian Authority is in Israel’s interest because, without it, Israel would have to police and provide civilian services to millions of Palestinians. But as the aide to Mr. Netanyahu said when asked about that, “True, but that is not our only interest.”
Relations between the two sides have deteriorated, and senior Israeli leaders, including Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, have publicly argued for withholding the Palestinian transfers. Mr. Netanyahu has not gone that far.
At the same time, the Israeli and Palestinian Finance Ministry panels working on the tax and customs transfers have recently made important strides together, reducing leakage and increasing revenues, both sides said.


Mr. Fayyad noted that since the Europeans were facing their own fiscal crises and the Arabs had not come forward with pledged donations, it made little sense to assume either would come to the rescue now. In the past two years, the authority has set up institutions as part of its ambition to be ready for statehood, and that has made fiscal reliability all the more important.
“If we can’t meet our contractual obligations, that has a chilling effect on the private sector,” Mr. Fayyad said. “This undermines confidence in the Palestinian Authority’s capacity to function, which has a debilitating effect on investor confidence. Like a family, a government can make do with less — but not a drop of two-thirds.”

Actually it is more simple then this. when Palestine unilaterally went to the U.N. to ask for statehood it broke the Oslo agreement. It isn’t the Israeli opinion. It is a legal fact. The NYTimes is lying. They have no right to ask for funding if they broke their promises.

Sarkozy Tells Obama, ‘Netanyahu is a Liar’

November 8, 2011

Congress calls on Obama to apologize!

The French – in True Form! it was no mistake. this was orchestrated. can’t prove it, but it would make sense. The French have always known how to play politics dirty and to air their vile Anti-Semitic views in a way that they can apologize for is par for the general course of how the French deal and have always dealt with Jews. I just love the way Sarkozy thinks he can get away with this kind of elitist game because he has relatives that were Jews. it would be a good way for Sarkozy to convince his Palestinian sympathizing franks that he was in their corner. my guess is Sarkozy set Obama up… and I’m glad he did. I’m also shocked to see that Obama fell for it. So… now you know Obama’s position. Are there any liberal Jews out there who are stupid enough to vote for him? you betcha! Liberal Jews still love a President who hates Israel.

(h/t Sarah Leah Lawent / French President Nicolas Sarkozy is in a diplomatic knot after telling President Barack Obama, in what he thought was a private call, “Netanyahu is a liar.” The president also made a negative remark about the Prime Minister.
He and President Obama were talking in a private room after a press conference at the G20 summit in Cannes last week.
They did not know that their microphones were open and that reporters outside still were wearing their headphones they had used to hear simultaneous translations of President Obama’s remarks in public.
The French Web site Arret sur Images published the conversation.
President Obama complained to Sarkozy for not telling the United States ahead of time it would vote in favor of admitting the Palestinian Authority to UNESCO, a move the Obama administration opposed.
The conversation flowed to the subject of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

when you shoot an Armenian think of Obama

Sarkozy: “I cannot stand him. He is a liar.”
Obama: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”
The president then suggested to Sarkozy that he try to convince PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to lay low in its attempt to win membership in the United Nations.
The French website apparently was the only media outlet to publish the remarks because other journalists who overheard the remarks – unintended for publication – agreed not to report the conversation.

Bibi should take off a glove and slap Sarkozy in the face… and Obama shows his true colors. His issue is that he has to deal with those lowly Jews. Oh… such a burden! He much prefers his polite court Jews. He acts like he did the Jews such a favor by pulling funding for UNESCO, but that is B.S.. Obama was forced to do that by U.S. law… and it was just such a burden. Obama would much rather hug a big Turk at G20 like Erdogan.

(EOZ) This is a big story, and others are all over it. But there is another troubling aspect to the story that is being overlooked.
The conversation happened on November 3rd. The story was only reported yesterday, November 7th, and then only because a French media watchdog website broke the story.
Which means that none of the journalists who were there reported about this explosive story.
Why not?

The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments. A Reuters reporter was among the journalists present and can confirm the veracity of the comments.
A member of the media confirmed Monday that “there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue.”
He added that while it was annoying to have to refrain from publishing the information, the journalists are subject to precise rules of conduct.

Ah, so it was an ethical thing. Because of “sensitivity.”
While I cannot find anything in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics to preclude reporting on a story like this, I guess we should trust their judgment that some open mic stories are fair game and others are way over the line. (There was another time that Obama kept his mic open and journalists reported on what he said, but he didn’t say anything embarrassing.)
Under the same circumstances, these ethical journalists would no doubt have kept quiet about similarly indiscreet comments from, say, George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, and they would have happily signed an agreement muzzling them from reporting them.
And there would have been no news reports about how outrageous it is for world leaders to demand that something embarrassing to them be kept quiet.

‘Palestinians’ drop UN agency bids

November 4, 2011

(Israel Matzav) For now, the ‘Palestinian Authority’ has suspended its bids to join 16 UN agencies as a full member.

The Palestinian foreign minister stressed that the PA’s decision to shelve its general membership bids would enable it to focus its efforts on the UN Security Council bid and the drive to become a full member at the UN.
UNESCO’s acceptance, he said, constitutes a positive push for the PA’s diplomatic efforts in the UN. The PLO first applied to UNESCO in 1989.
Turning his attention to the nearing UN Security Council vote, al-Malki said that if the Palestinians fail to get the necessary votes, or in case the US vetoes a favorable vote – as it said it would do – the Palestinians would pursue other avenues of acceptance into the United Nations.
“An observer status is no longer enough,” he explained.
The Palestinian foreign minister’s statement followed an admonition by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who said that the Palestinian efforts to join other United Nations agencies were “not beneficial for Palestine and not beneficial for anybody.”

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl) is onto something.

it’s too late. Oslo has already been voided. Time to make Judea and Samaria part of Israel.

Canada says it is cutting funding for UNESCO after cultural body admits Palestinians as member

November 1, 2011
TORONTO — Canada is joining the U.S. in cutting off funding for the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO because it approved a Palestinian bid for full membership.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Tuesday the decision is not in the best interests of peace in the Middle East, so Canada is freezing all future voluntary contributions to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Canada contributes about $10 million a year to the agency.
The United States has also announced it will pull its $60 million in funding from UNESCO, which depends heavily on American funding.
The UNESCO vote represented a fallback plan for the Palestinian leadership after its bid for U.N. recognition as a state and full membership in the global body foundered in September.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Freeze would be ethnic cleansing says Boogie

October 23, 2011
The IDF’s former chief of staff who resigned over the Gaza expulsion, and who is now number 3 on the Likud’s list, has openly allied himself with Feiglin. And again Binyamin Netanyahu is not pleased about losing the loyalty of Ya’alon. 
“The demand for territory without Jews anywhere else would be called ethnic cleansing,” Ya’alon said. “We cannot accept a demand for ethnic cleansing in the land of Israel.”
Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon came out fiercely against a reported proposal for an Israeli construction moratorium in Judea and Samaria Saturday night, calling the prohibition of Jewish building “ethnic cleansing.”

Speaking to a packed audience at Jerusalem’s Great Synagogue, Ya’alon referred indirectly to a Haaretz report that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is willing to freeze all construction on government land in West Bank settlements if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas resumes direct diplomatic negotiations.

Ya’alon said that Israel was under pressure from people who incorrectly believe the cause of the Middle East conflict is the building of homes in Judea and Samaria. He denounced that theory as “a corrupt way of thinking” and explained why the true cause of Middle East instability was the Islamic fundamentalism emanating from Iran.

The vice premier expressed confidence that an International Atomic Energy Association report set to be released on November 7 would expose to any remaining skeptics in the international community the military intentions of Iran’s nuclear program. He said he hoped sanctions on Iran could then be tightened.

Ya’alon called the Arab Spring “a regional earthquake” that exposed young Muslims to Western ideals such as human rights, women’s rights, freedom of speech, and “the sanctity of life as opposed to the sanctity of death.”

But he said he was not encouraged by radical elements apparently gaining the upper hand in Egypt and Tunisia, al-Qaida infiltrating Libya and Iran attempting to export its Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Arab world.

He made a point of not explaining his vote against the Gilad Schalit deal beyond what he had said before about his heart saying yes and his head saying no.

“We should be happy about the reunification of Schalit’s family but prepared to deal with the consequences for the future as a government and a society,” he said.

Caroline Glick: Israel Loses At the United Nations

September 23, 2011

I was starting to celebrate the fact that Obama was doing Israel’s bidding. That view was obviously limited and premature.

(One Jerusalem) Many friends of Israel are concluding that President Obama’s speech at the United Nations is a monumental victory for the State of Israel. Setting aside that Israel would not be facing a Palestinian State vote if President Obama did not call for the recognition of a Palestinian State last year at the UN, or if he would have backed legislation that would cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority if they went through with this stunt, the fact is Obama (at this point) has only delivered words. Even promising and castinga veto on the Security Council is not what Israel needs at this time. As Caroline Glick argues, Israel needs a quick veto but for that to happen the United States must demand a quick vote at the Security Council. At this point it looks like this will be a long drawn out deliberation which will play into the hands of the Palestinians. Caroline Glick writes

From Israel’s perspective, the best possible outcome of the current standoff at the U.N. is for the Palestinians to present their resolution for statehood to the Security Council and for the U.S. to immediately veto it. Such a move would provide closure to this particular round of anti-Israel aggression. But it certainly wouldn’t end the danger. The Palestinians can renew their request as often as they please. And given the sympathetic — indeed enthusiastic — reception they have received at the U.N., there is little reason to doubt that they will do so.
The worse scenario from Israel’s perspective is quickly becoming the more likely one. That scenario is that the Security Council will not bring the Palestinian-statehood resolution to an immediate vote but will instead delay voting on it for an indeterminate period. During that period, the U.S. and the EU will exert massive pressure on Israel to capitulate to whatever Palestinian preconditions for renewing negotiations are on hand.
Israel will face the prospect that if it fails to surrender to all the Palestinian demands, the U.N. will retaliate by passing the Palestinian-statehood resolution. At a minimum, Israel will find itself under a constant barrage of criticism blaming it for the Palestinian decision to abandon the peace process and ask the U.N. to grant them what they refuse to negotiate with Israel.
All of this could have been averted or at least mitigated if the Obama administration had behaved differently. If the White House had announced at an early date that it would automatically veto any resolution calling for Palestinian U.N. membership and would end all U.S. financial and political support for the Palestinian Authority if it went through with its stated aim of applying for U.N. membership as a state, the Palestinians would likely have set aside their plans. But still today President Obama has refused to take any punitive action against the PA and, according to the New York Times, forced Israel to lobby Congress not to cut off foreign aid to the PA.
(image – a Jew hate site)