Petulant POTUS – Threatens Bibi with UN over 2-State Issue

Editor’s Note – Now that Netanyahu has stunned both his country’s leftist media and ours, and set Obama into a tirade, Obama is threatening Netanyahu before he even calls to congratulate him on his stunning victory.

We and many others have chronicled Obama’s loathe for Netanyahu for years, but now, it is not even arguable anymore – and Obama is about to throw our greatest Middle East ally under the bus in favor of the Arabs, or as the left likes to call them, the Palestinians.

Now Obama is going to cut him off at the knees by going around him to the U.N. – removing a long history of defending Israel in that farce of a world peace organization:

From Tel Aviv to Turtle Bay – The White House hoped a new Israeli prime minister would resume peace talks with the Palestinians. With Netanyahu holding on, the administration is weighing a turn to the U.N. to help force a deal.

After years of blocking U.N. efforts to pressure Israelis and Palestinians into accepting a lasting two-state solution, the United States is edging closer toward supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution that would call for the resumption of political talks to conclude a final peace settlement, according to Western diplomats. (Read more at Foreign Policy.)

The petulant Obama must get his way; by hook or crook, and he harbors grudges like no other President. Dick Cheney is correct, Obama is the worst President, eclipsing Jimmy Carter easily – or is it badly?

Will Obama no longer have Israel's back? The icy relationship between Obama and Netanyahu is about to get far colder!
Will Obama no longer have Israel’s back? The icy relationship between Obama and Netanyahu is about to get far colder!

Once again, Obama’s view of the world, and that of John Kerry is proving to be a continuing failure for the best interests of freedom loving people in favor of Palestine and our enemies. Look for him to coddle Hezbollah now as well!

Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama on collision course over Palestinian two-state solution

Israel and America set for new confrontation after US president bluntly restates belief in Palestinian state to solve Middle East problem

By , Jerusalem and David Blair in Tel Aviv of the UK Telegraph

A triumphant Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to be on a new collision course with Barack Obama on Wednesday night after the US president bluntly restated his belief in a Palestinian state and criticised the Israeli leader’s re-election campaign tactics.

In a pointed intervention, Mr Obama was said to be “deeply concerned” about comments made about Israel’s Arab population, a spokesman said, calling it “divisive”.

“The Obama administration is deeply concerned by the use of divisive rhetoric in Israel that sought to marginalise Arab Israeli citizens,” Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman told reporters. “This rhetoric undermines the values and Democratic ideals that have been important to our democracy and an important part of what binds the United States and Israel together. These are views the administration intends to communicate directly to the Israelis.”

The criticism appeared to refer to comments Mr Netanyahu made in a video posted on Facebook on election day on Tuesday when he attempted to mobilise supporters by warning that Arabs were “voting in droves” and being bussed to polling stations by Left-wing groups.

The White House intervention rudely interrupted the Israeli prime minister’s celebrations of an unexpected landslide re-election win and followed Mr Netanyahu’s eve-of-poll abandonment of a commitment to recognise Palestinian statehood as part of a peace agreement.

israel-results_3236336b

Mr Netanyahu – desperately trying to woo Right-wing voters – created fresh doubts about the future of the Middle East peace process when he said on Monday that a Palestinian state would not be created if he were re-elected.

Mr Netanyahu’s Likud party won a resounding victory against a strongly-tipped centre-Left opposition grouping, the Zionist Union, largely by appealing to supporters of Right-wing parties like the Jewish Home, which opposes a Palestinian state.

The Israeli leader has previously committed himself to accepting a demilitarised Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive peace deal in a 2009 speech at Tel Aviv’s Bar Ilan University. He said that commitment was no longer relevant in a region threatened by Islamist radicals.

But in a thinly-veiled rebuke of Mr Netanyahu’s volte face, Mr Earnest told reporters that Mr Obama still believed that a two-state solution – usually defined as an independent Palestine and Israel living side-by-side – was the best means of bringing stability to the Middle East.

“It has been the policy of the United States for more than 20 years that a two-state solution is the goal of resolving the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians,” he added. “Based on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments, the United States will reevaluate our position and the path forward in this situation.”

Prime Minister 2009 – present and 1996 – 1999 - Benjamin Netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister since David Ben Gurion. He came to power for the first time in 1996 and held the premiership until his crushing defeat in the 1999 election. He achieved a political comeback in 2009 and has been prime minister ever since.
Prime Minister
(2009 – present and 1996 – 1999) Benjamin Netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister since David Ben Gurion. He came to power for the first time in 1996 and held the premiership until his crushing defeat in the 1999 election.
He achieved a political comeback in 2009 and has been prime minister ever since.

He said Mr Obama had not yet called Mr Netanyahu to congratulate him but would do so in the coming days.

The two men have had a notoriously frosty relationship – which worsened this month when the Israeli leader accepted an invitation behind Mr Obama’s back to address the US Congress, where he criticised the White House’s efforts to reach a deal with Iran over its nuclear programme.

In further remarks, the spokesman said Mr Obama did not believe Mr Netanyahu’s re-election win would have a serious impact on the Iran negotiations, which have reached a crucial phase.

The Obama administration’s comments followed statements from the European Union, the United Nations and the Palestinians demanding a renewed commitment to the stalled peace process.

Palestinian officials responded to Mr Netanyahu’s re-election by threatening to intensify diplomatic moves aimed at pressuring Israel, including pursuing it for possible war crimes in the International Criminal Court, which the Palestinian Authority is due to join on April 1.

A spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader, said he expected the new Israeli government to “recognise the two-state solution”.

“On this basis, we will continue to cooperate with any Israeli government that is committed to international resolutions,” said the spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh.

Review Netanyahu’s political history here.

The renewed emphasis on peace came after Mr Netanyahu vowed on Wednesday to quickly assemble a new Right-wing government that would safeguard the “welfare and security” of all Israelis.

A day after a surprise landslide victory, the prime minister said he would waste no time by putting together a new coalition “within two to three weeks”.

“Reality will not wait for us,” he said. “The citizens of Israel expect us to quickly put together a leadership that will work for them regarding security, economy and society as we committed to do – and we will do so.”

The pledge came as final results from Tuesday’s poll showed his Likud party winning 30 seats in the 120-member Knesset, Israel’s parliament, decisively outstripping the 24 won by the Zionist Union, which pre-election surveys had suggested could emerge as the biggest party.

It paved the way for Mr Netanyahu to serve a fourth term as Israeli prime minister during which he is likely to become his country’s longest-serving leader, surpassing David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding leader.

The result also confounded exit polls that showed the two groupings in a dead heat – an outcome which would have raised the possibility of them joining forces in a national unity government, or grand coalition.

netanyahu_obamaThat appeared unlikely on Wednesday as Likud officials predicted a new conservative government formed with smaller Right-wing and religious parties. Isaac Herzog, the Zionist Union leader, ruled out entering a grand coalition by conceding that his future lay in the opposition.

Mr Netanyahu is instead expected to cobble together a coalition with like-minded partners such as the Jewish Home party before reaching out to Moshe Kahlon, a former Likud minister whose new Kulanu party won 10 seats by appealing to Israelis worried about socio-economic issues.

Mr Netanyahu’s victory was achieved through using “cannibalising” tactics that involved eating up support from smaller Right-wing parties by frightening their followers about the prospects of a Left-wing government ready to compromise Israel’s security, campaign insiders said.

As the prime minister’s poll ratings sunk, his chief strategist, Aron Shaviv, decided to make his woes the main theme in the campaign’s final days by constantly reminding voters that the man they know as “Bibi” really might lose.

Making a virtue of Mr Netanyahu’s vulnerability, the tactic targeted voters who had abandoned Likud for various parties positioned even further along the hardline spectrum, notably the Jewish Home, led by Naftali Bennett, which lost five seats in the election.

UPDATE: Iran Wins, the World Loses – Goodbye Kobani

UPDATE 8:30 PM Eastern, 10/10/14 – SUA has received further information in regard to the analysis in this posted article from multiple, high ranking sources in the Middle East that affirm that the United States, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey have agreed to allow Kobani to fall to the ISIS (Daesh) forces. They have decided to deal with ISIS later, and that the US will fall in line with decisions made by this group.

The intent is to allow Bashir al Assad to remain in power in Syria, despite Turkey’s protests to affirm that Iran will then control Syria and Iraq. Additionally, SUA was told that these leaders do not want the Kurds to ever have a formal state of their own despite its current semi-autonomous stature to placate the Turks and the Iranians. SUA also learned that aid from the United States is not being delivered to the Peshmurga (Kurds) in Northern Iraq but is being held in Baghdad to ensure this end.

Please read the original article as well:

Iran Wins, the World Loses – Thanks Mr. Obama

By Denise Simon – SUA Analyst and Associate Editor

Have you wondered why Barack Obama says that a war to crush Daesh (IS) may take as much as three years to contain their terrorism? Have you wondered why we will not commit ground forces?

Have you wondered why we never attempted to removed Bashar al Assad or clean up Syria? Have you wondered about the GCC and those relationships and why there are splits in relationships in the region?obama_rowhanisplit

The Obama administration is on a single tracked mission to have a ‘nuclear accord’ with Iran, and nothing will be allowed to impede this objective.

There will be no consideration for historical terror globally at the hands of Iran, no allowance for millions of Syrian refugees displaced throughout the region and no attention paid to 300,000 dead in Syria and Iraq.

All of these facts are dismissed at the hands of John Kerry and his carefully selected team to engage Iran and bring them into the worldwide community demanding that leadership of other countries accept this agenda.

It is proven that John Kerry, the White House, and the NSC knows very well why and the players include as many as 100 notable DC insiders, a team of people you need to reacquaint yourself with. It is an interesting mix of strange bedfellows.

First, the administration engaged a delegation out of Switzerland to open and prod talks with Iran. Then after Hillary Clinton, who virtually had no interest in the matter knowing she had future Oval Office dreams left, John Kerry mobilized this team.

They are seen here as signatories to a report produced by the Iran Project called “Iran and Its Neighbors: Regional Implications for U.S. Policy of a Nuclear Agreement.” It is a long and tedious read full of assumed conceptions, omissions, and a stark “new global ranking” philosophy. It clearly sidelines Israel and other major players and injects facts, where others or voided, which are not in evidence and ignores many facets that are terror/Islam related issues.

This analysis is on part four of a four part series signed by the following:

Iran Group 1

Iran Group 2

For next week:  European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, and US Secretary of State John Kerry will meet in Vienna next week, October 14-15. They have a looming deadline for a final nuclear deal with Iran less than two months away, European and Iranian officials said Wednesday.

US negotiators, including Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, and senior advisor Jake Sullivan, will meet with their Iranian counterparts in Vienna on Tuesday Oct. 14, a day ahead of Kerry joining the Ashton Zarif meeting, the State Department said. The meetings come as there is a growing sense in the Washington policy community and beyond that concluding a comprehensive accord by the Nov. 24 deadline is unlikely.

So for some background here are some chilling facts gleaned from their report:

In 2002 George W. Bush called Iran as being a part of an “Axis of Evil” causing an escalation in hostilities between the United States and Iran. Since then, the Obama Administration has chosen to ignore the Bush proclamation and has engaged Iran in all aspects of middle east policy with sights on a nuclear weapons/enrichment accord.

There is no intention to stop the nuclear enrichment program but merely to contain it at a level that has not yet been determined. The U.S. using all the power-brokers listed above have purposely installed Iran as a peace partner and an emerging power in the Middle East. Through 2014-2016, Kerry et al, has deferred to Iran to maintain and manage al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan once we exit fully.

IranProject4

Today there is even chatter to remove Iran from being officially listed by the U.S as a ‘state sponsor or terror.’

John Kerry et al, have determined that Iran is now moderate and no longer a pariah such that all recent and future talks with Iran are aimed to integrate them into the world community on par with all other legitimate nations.

This is being accomplished by lifting sanctions, encouraging trade and investment in Iran, and by including Iran in not only on the diplomatic stage, but also militarily when it comes to Iraq and Syria.

At the behest of Iran, the U.S. has not taken on Syria or Assad fearing that it will fall further and become a failed state like Somalia. Syria is Iran’s beach-head. Early on, John Kerry asked Russia to take on Syria/Assad and work to impose a transitional government all for the sake of the ‘nuclear talks’. Russia declined.

It has been officially declared, though silently, that there is no military solution to Syria, either before or ‘after’ the nuclear agreement with Iran, and once the agreement is agreed to and signed, only then will a robust humanitarian solution begin at a Geneva lll meeting.

At that time, talks of a ‘unity’ state for Syria will begin and those invited to this future session will include: Saudi Arabia, Russian, Iran, Turkey, and Assad. In the meantime human slaughter continues in the region.

Israel is left out completely and after the nuclear accord is completed, the U.S. will then sell the program to Israel. Then they will sell it to Turkey to bridge all ‘gaps’ between Iran and Turkey, although those tensions have moderated since Erdogan was re-elected.

After this ‘nuclear accord’ is reached, the U.S. will aid Iran’s energy production to bolster Europe’s energy supply reducing their dependence on Russia. This will include pipelines, power grids, and natural gas delivery with cross border projects.

If no ‘nuclear accord’ is reached, certain blow-back triggers will begin and will include additional sanctions and renewed threats solicited from the West. At that point the U.S. will begin their blame game on Iran and will then reach out to Israel to clean up the mess militarily. Additionally, the U.S will threaten to wean herself completely from the Middle East interests for the next ten years.

132313_obama_kerry_rouhani_putin_assad_aps_605

The talks between the West and Iran are being positioned such that the entire plank is created and the approval and signing will go directly to Rouhani and Barack Obama. To date, Obama has successfully finessed and minimized Congress, Israel, and all lobby groups with regard to these talks.

There is only a feeble border between Afghanistan and Iran and Iran will use Afghani refugees as a bargaining chip in order to keep the new Afghan government in check economically as America and NATO exit the country and we will be taking our money with us.

To date, the John Kerry nuclear talks team has virtually ignored all countries in the GCC and Iran will be forced on those countries in spite of their positions today. Ignoring current and future ground conditions, the building of terror networks and the continued killing machines known as Daesh, along with al Qaeda factions merging, the outlook for global stability is grim such that even Leon Panetta and others have predicted a 30 year war.

John Kerry is playing a hidden hand with this nefarious objective such that the world is at risk due to Iran’s red carpet treatment at the hands of the Obama administration. Nuclear weapons are in the future for other countries due to Iran. This is not a Cold War Part Two building, rather it is a real hot war at genesis.

Here are some important excerpts to read from their report:

2.5.3 Improving reforms.

The Gulf States understandably fear Iran’s military capability, particularly its navy and ballistic missile arsenal; but the real threat is an ideological one. Gulf rulers believe that Iran is determined to subvert their domestic politics by exploiting aggrieved segments of their citizenry. One way to mitigate this challenge would be through domestic reform. This could help reduce Iran’s influence in internal Gulf State affairs. As of now, the kings and autocratic rulers in the region remain wary of an Iran that still symbolizes popular, Shi’ite-influenced revolution. U.S. encouragement of such reforms, while desirable, is problematic.

6.1.2 Syrian support during Iran–Iraq War.

When in 1980 Iraq invaded Iran, Saddam had been supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in an effort to topple Syria’s president, and Hafiz al-Assad at once committed his country to Tehran’s defense.1 Iran’s leaders named the war, which lasted until 1988, “the Sacred Defense” (of the revolution), and ever since has been meticulously building a Shi’ite sphere of influence. Called the “Shi’ite Crescent” by some detractors and the “Resistance Front” by those who belong to it, Iran’s network stretches across Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean. The Resistance Front, which was originally made up only of Hezbollah and Syria but which today includes Iraq, has been a central pillar of Iranian defense since the Islamic revolution. Without it, Tehran believes that its enemies could further isolate Iran and even bring about regime change. As one local cleric recently explained, “If we lose Syria, we cannot keep Tehran.”2 Among Iranian leaders, this rhetoric is widespread. Major General Qassem Suleimani, the principal architect of Iran’s military effort in Syria and head of its Qods Force, has asserted, “Syria is the front line of the resistance.”3

8.2.4.b Evidence of Iran–Al Qaeda antagonism.

Documents captured from the 2011 Abbottabad operation that killed Osama bin Laden support the insurance/bargaining-chip interpretation. According to bin Laden’s letters, relations between Iran and Al Qaeda was hostile, characterized by disagreements over releasing Al Qaeda members and their families, as well as over covert actions taken by Al Qaeda against Iran. A complex series of negotiations and hostage exchanges, all detailed in bin Laden’s letters, confirms their antagonism. The relationship has become even more troubled since Hezbollah and Al Qaeda affiliates began killing each other in Syria.

8.3.1 Terrorist designation remains a major obstacle.

Any nuclear accord that includes significant relief from sanctions will have to deal with the fact that some sanctions against Iran enacted by Congress have been keyed to terrorism. Thus removing Iran from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list would be difficult. The relevant legislation requires that the Secretary of State provide evidence either that the state has a new government (as was the case in Libya and Iraq) or that it has not engaged in terrorist activities in the prior six months and is committed not to do so in the future (as was argued in de-listing North Korea). Neither is the case here. Meanwhile, the Iranian public’s expectations for relief from sanctions are a major factor moving the Rouhani government toward agreement. The sanctions linked to terrorism mean that, even if a nuclear deal is struck, the domestic politics in both countries may make it difficult to sustain a positive momentum. This could lead to a new phase of U.S.–Iranian tension.

________________

Edited and Posted by Scott W. Winchell

Israel Foe Robert Malley Obama’s New MidEast Man

Editor’s Note – From the “Shake My Head” files, Obama and Kerry want Robert Malley to be the new Middle East man. However this is not really new, he appears to have been retained all along as their man, and this goes all the way back to the Clinton Administration.

Obama picked up that baton and is now twirling it. This goes back to the Rashid Khalidi/Bill Ayers Israel bashing party and the tape that has never surfaced even though the LA Times still has it. Look at the connections here as well.

Since he was first elected in 2008, and took the oath of office (twice the first time) at his inauguration in 2009, many have questioned Obama’s stance on Israel and attaining peace with the ‘Palestinians.’

At numerous points, much has pointed in the direction of his less than loyal stand towards Israel despite glowing, yet empty words of support for them.obama_netanyahu_getty_file_thumb_thumb[24]

There was the time early in his Presidency that showed open disdain for Israel and its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.

This was followed up with massive pressure application on the Israelis for several years, especially regarding Iran and land arguments regarding the ‘Palestinians’.

In the most recent times, under John Kerry’s efforts as Secretary of State, the definition of insanity has been proven over and over.

Recent peace talks barely started before the predictable immediate implosion took place; John Kerry struck out again. Why? Because they simply do not have the best interests of the Israelis, our staunchest ally to date in the region at heart. Rather, this administration has been obviously behind all things ‘Palestinian’.

Now the proof is in! Who does Kerry and Obama want to be in charge of the Israeli/Palestinian peace process? They want Robert Malley. Who is Malley? Adam Kredo from the Washington Free Beacon writes the following:

An anti-Israel diplomat who was kicked off the 2008 Obama campaign after he was caught negotiating with the terror group Hamas is under consideration for a State Department advisory post, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

Robert Malley, a longtime government insider who worked for former President Bill Clinton and advised then-Sen. Barack Obama, is said to be on Kerry’s shortlist for deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, according to reports and sources. He currently serves as the Middle East director of the International Crisis Group (ICG).

If tapped for the job, Malley would be in charge of the Israel-Palestinian peace process, according to Al Monitor.

Yes, that Robert Malley! Why not just come out and say it openly, Obama and Kerry simple deplore Netanyahu and the peace loving Israelis. In a quick summary, Robert Malley is:

Rabidly anti-Israel, Simon Malley was a confidante of the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various leftist revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Samantha Powers (right) was asked to leave the Obama campaign for her anti-Israeli postitions and then Robert Malley stepped down for meeting with Hamas several times. Now, another anti-Israel Barack Obama advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski (left), is blasting the American Israel Jewish Public Affairs Committee for “McCarthyism.”
Samantha Powers (right) was asked to leave the Obama campaign for her anti-Israeli postitions and then Robert Malley [Center] stepped down for meeting with Hamas several times. Now, another anti-Israel Barack Obama advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski (left), is blasting the American Israel Jewish Public Affairs Committee for “McCarthyism.” [From The “Gateway Pundit” in 2008, click the image to read more.]
To further see why, please read the rest from DiscoverTheNetworks.org, “a guide to the political left”:

Robert Malley – Some History

  • Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group
  • Formerly served as President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs
  • Son of Simon Malley, a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party
  • Blamed Israel for the failed Camp David peace negotiations with Yasser Arafat in 2000
  • Has co-written a number of op-ed pieces with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat
  • Consistently condemns Israel, exonerates Palestinians, urges U.S. disengagement from Israel, and recommends that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies
  • Became foreign policy advisor to presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2007

Harvard-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, Robert Malley is the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which receives funding from the Open Society Institute (whose founder, George Soros, serves on the ICG Board and Executive Committee).

In his capacity with ICG, Malley directs a number of analysts based in Amman, Cairo, Beirut, Tel Aviv, and Baghdad. These analysts report periodically on the political, social and economic factors which they believe have the potential to spark conflict in those regions, and they make policy recommendations in an effort to defuse such threats. Covering events from from Iran to Morocco, Malley’s team focuses most heavily on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the political and military developments in Iraq, and Islamist movements across the Middle East.

Prior to joining ICG, Malley served as President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs (1998-2001); National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s Executive Assistant (1996-1998); and the National Security Council’s Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and Humanitarian Affairs (1994-1996).

In 2007, Malley — one of the most frequently quoted commentators on U.S. Middle East policy and Arab-Israeli strife — became a foreign policy advisor to Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Malley was raised in France by his mother — a native New Yorker named Barbara Silverstein — and his father, Simon Malley, a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party. Rabidly anti-Israel, Simon Malley was a confidante of the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various leftist revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.Netanyahu-Nasrallah-Obama

In a July 2001 op-ed (titled “Fictions About the Failure at Camp David”) which was published in the New York Times, Robert Malley (whose family, as noted above, had close ties to Yasser Arafat) alleged that Israeli — not Palestinian — inflexibility had caused the previous year’s Camp David peace talks (brokered by Bill Clinton) to fail. This was one of several controversial articles Malley has written — some he co-wrote with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat — blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat for that failure.

In their August 9, 2001 piece, “Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors,” Malley and Agha again dismissed claims that the Camp David talks had failed when “Ehud Barak’s unprecedented offer” was met with “Yasser Arafat’s uncompromising no.” They wrote that Barak had taken an unnecessarily hard-line approach in negotiating with Arafat. According to Malley and Agha, Arafat believed that Barak was intent on “either forcing him to swallow an unconscionable deal or mobilizing the world to isolate and weaken the Palestinians if they refused to yield.”

Malley’s identification of Israel as the cause of the Camp David failure has been widely embraced by Palestinian and Arab activists around the world, by Holocaust deniers like Norman Finkelstein, and by anti-Israel publications such as CounterpunchAccording to American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky, Malley “was also believed to be the chief source for an article [dated July 26, 2001] by Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat’s role in the collapse of the peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias.”_50363060_abbasnetanyahu

Malley’s account of the Camp David negotiations is entirely inconsistent with the recollections of the key figures who participated in those talks, most notably then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, U.S. President Bill Clinton, and U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross (Clinton’s Middle East envoy).

According to Ross, the peace efforts failed for one reason only: because Arafat wanted them to fail. “[F]undamentally,” said Ross, “I do not believe he [Arafat] can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict. Arafat’s whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause … [F]or him to end the conflict is to end himself…. Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it [peace] wasn’t … achievable was because Arafat wouldn’t accept.”

Over the years, Malley has penned numerous op-eds condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, HezbollahHamas, and Muqtada al-SadrEd Lasky enumerates and summarizes some of these Malley writings as follows:

  • Playing Into Sharon’s Hands”: In this January 2002 piece, says Lasky, Malley “absolves Arafat of the responsibility to restrain terrorists and blames Israel for terrorism. He defends Arafat and hails him as ‘… the first Palestinian leader to recognize Israel, relinquish the objective of regaining all of historic Palestine and negotiate for a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 boundaries.’”
  • Rebuilding a Damaged Palestine”: This May 2002 article accuses Israel’s security operations of deliberately weakening Palestinian security forces (which themselves are replete with terrorists and thus make little or no effort to prevent terrorism), and calls for international forces to keep Israel in check.
  • Making the Best of Hamas’s Victory”: In this March 2006 piece, Malley recommends that nations worldwide establish relationships with, and send financial aid to, the Palestinians’ newly elected, Hamas-led government. Malley also alleges that Hamas’ policies and Israeli policies are essentially mirror images of one another. Writes Malley: “The Islamists (Hamas) ran on a campaign of effective government and promised to improve Palestinians’ lives; they cannot do that if the international community turns its back.” In Malley’s calculus, the Hamas victory was a manifestation of Palestinian “anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, Western lecturing and, most recently and tellingly, the threat of an aid cut off in the event of an Islamist success.” In addition, Malley counsels the U.S. not to “discourage third-party unofficial contacts with [Hamas] in an attempt to moderate it.”Hamas1
  • Avoiding Failure with Hamas”: This April 2006 article not only advocates international aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian government, but also suggests that a failure to extend such aid could trigger an environmental or public health crisis for Palestinians.
  • How to Curb the Tension in Gaza” (July 2006): Here, Malley and co-writer Gareth Evans condemn Israel for its military’s efforts (in 2006) to recover Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who had been kidnapped and held hostage by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. The authors classify Israel’s retaliatory actions as “collective punishment” that stands in “violation of international law.”
  • Forget Pelosi: What About Syria?”: In this April 2007 piece, Malley advocates U.S. and Israeli outreach to Syria, notwithstanding the latter’s close affiliations with Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda in Iraq. He further contends that it is both unreasonable and unrealistic for Israel or Western nations to demand that Syria sever its ties with the aforementioned organizations or with Iran. He suggests, moreover, that if Israel were to return the Golan Heights (which it captured in the 1967 Six Day War, and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War — two conflicts sparked by Arab aggression) to Syrian control, Damascus would, as Lasky puts it, “somehow miraculously” pursue peace — “after they get all they want.”
  • Containing a Shiite Symbol of Hope”: This October 2006 article advocates U.S. engagement with the fiercely anti-American Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite leader of the Mahdi Army in Iraq.
  • Middle East Triangle”: Co-written with Hussein Agha, this January 2008 piece calls for Hamas and Fatah to end their bitter disputes and to join forces in an effort to derail what the authors view as Israel’s attempt to “perpetuate Palestinian geographic and political division.” Malley and Agha predict that such a strategy would prompt Hamas to: (a) abandon its longstanding quest to destroy Israel; and (b) encourage Palestinian AuthorityPresident Mahmoud Abbas (a leading member of Fatah) to negotiate for a lasting peace with Israel.
  • The U.S. Must Look to its Own Mideast Interests”: Co-written with Aaron David Miller, this September 2006 article urges the U.S. to engage with Syria and Hamas, rather than to “follow Israel’s lead.” Malley and Miller add: “A national unity government between Fatah and Hamas appears within reach, and the Europeans seem prepared to resume assistance to such a government once it takes shape. Should this happen, America shouldn’t stand in the way — regardless of whether Hamas recognizes Israel or formally renounces violence. Instead, the United States should see this as an opportunity to achieve what is achievable: a Palestinian cease-fire involving all armed organizations, a halt to all Israeli offensive military actions, and the resumption of normal economic life for the Palestinian government and people.”
  • A New Middle East”: In this September 2006 article, Malley contends that Hezbollah’s infamous attacks and kidnappings targeting Israelis (two months earlier) were motivated partly by that organization’s desire to liberate Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails, and partly by pressure from Hezbollah’s close allies, Syria and Iran.

Puppets3In July 2006 Malley criticized the U.S. for allegedly remaining “on the sidelines” and being a “no-show” in the overall effort to bring peace to the nations of the Middle East. Exhorting the Bush administration to change its policy of refusing to engage diplomatically with terrorists and their sponsoring states, Malley stated: “Today the U.S. does not talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, the elected Palestinian government or Hizballah…. The result has been a policy with all the appeal of a moral principle and all the effectiveness of a tired harangue.”

In February 2004 Malley testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and recommended that the Arab-Israeli “Road Map for Peace” be abandoned because neither side had confidence that the other was bargaining in good faith. As Ed Lasky writes, “[Malley] advocated that a comprehensive settlement plan be imposed on the parties with the backing of the international community, including Arab and Moslem states. He anticipated that Israel would object with ‘cries of unfair treatment’ but counseled the plan be put in place regardless of such objections; he also suggested that waiting for a ‘reliable Palestinian partner’ was unnecessary.”

According to Lasky, Malley’s overarching political objectives include “a radical reshaping of decades of American foreign policy and a shredding of the role of morality in the formulation of American policy.” “These policies,” says Lasky, “would strengthen our enemies, empower dictatorships, and harm our allies.

One U.S. security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, states that Robert Malley “has expressed sympathy to Hamas and Hezbollah and [has] offered accounts of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that don’t jibe with the facts.”

On May 9, 2008, the Barack Obama presidential campaign was forced to sever its ties with Malley after the latter told the Times of London that he had been in regular contact with Hamas as part of his work for ICG.

On November 5, 2008, Middle East Newsline reported that Obama “had sent senior foreign policy adviser Robert Malley to Egypt and Syria over the last few weeks to outline the Democratic candidate’s policy on the Middle East.” The report added that Malley had “relayed a pledge from Obama that the United States would seek to enhance relations with Cairo as well as reconcile with Damascus.” “The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests,” said an aide to Malley.

On February 18, 2014, it was announced that Malley was formally returning to the White House to serve as a senior director at the National Security Council, where he would be in charge of managing relations between the United States and its allies in the Persian Gulf.

Hezbollah threatens Galilee if war comes

Editor’s Note – The Levant region is already feeling the conflict in Syria spread, does Hezbollah have designs on using it to fire more upon Israel? This type of attack would be considered a major victory by Hezbollah – even if they are decimated because it would be a deep strike in a fragile area. This threatened action has been forecast for a long time but recent activity may mean a strike is coming soon.

Analyst says stakes high, conflict would be ‘decisive’

By Michael Carl – World Net Daily WND

Mt. Arbel cliffs overlook the Sea of Galilee (The Kenneret)

The next conflict involving Israel will not be another skirmish, according to a terrorism analyst for the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

“They [have] been saying that in the next war, the stakes will be much higher,” says Benedetta Berti. “It will be a decisive war.”

That the stakes are high was affirmed by a statement from Hezbollah on an English-language website that in the case of war, the Galilee region of Israel will be targeted.

Hezbollah has its sights on Galilee because military strategists say it is a key location between the Golan Heights to the east and Lebanon to the north and west.

Berti adds that the rhetoric has become more intense since the 2006 war.

“After 2006 they’ve been talking a lot about the escalation of the next conflict. [Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan] Nasrallah said to me that in the last war, there were limited rockets in the north. In the next war they’ll be aiming for all of Israel.

“He’s giving the idea of rockets in the Golan and trying to create the idea of strategic parity,” Berti said. “Talk of the Galilee in this context, trying to say Hezbollah is much more powerful, and they’re trying to say they can inflict a much greater blow in the next round.”

Middle East Forum Executive Director Daniel Pipes says he believes Hezbollah’s claim is more than an empty threat.

“Hezbollah attacked the Galilee in 2006 and did considerable damage. There is every reason to think that its capabilities have increased since then,” Pipes said. But he said he doesn’t know of any grand strategy.

“If there is a master plan, I would not know it. But this is definitely not hot air; Hezbollah has tens of thousands of rockets and missiles at its disposal,” Pipes said.

The Hezbollah site includes confirmation from Nasrallah of the status.

“It is the second time Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah sets Galilee as an inevitable target for the Resistance’s field operations in case ‘Israel’ attacks Lebanon,” the web page statement said.

Later in his statement he said, “According to the scenario of the likely confrontation, whoever takes over Galilee is automatically able to take over South Lebanon and plains surrounding Tabaria (Tiberias) Lake, and vice-versa; liberating any part of Galilee via the Lebanese territories shall petrify ‘Israel’ since most of its settlements are built nearby the Lebanese borders,” the web page said.

However, Berti says there’s a possibility that the web post is psychological warfare against Israel.

“I think it’s important in this case to separate between psychological warfare, which is something both Israel and Hezbollah have been doing since 2006, and reality,” Berti said. “What I mean by that is that I’m skeptical that Hezbollah can take over the Galilee, given the balance of power and the Israeli’s stronger military.

“I think they’re saying that in the context of propaganda and psychological warfare.”

She says actual military capability and “psy-ops” have to be considered.

“What they can do and have been doing is smaller scale incursions. That’s something that Hezbollah fighters have been training to do since 2006. That’s much more realistic – Hezbollah fighters crossing the border and carrying out a smaller operation,” Berti said.

Berti says another factor that determines Hezbollah’s capacity to carry out the Galilee threat is the Iranian-backed group’s involvement in Syria. However, Berti says that in her analysis, the group doesn’t have the logistical means to capture and occupy a large area of territory like the Galilee.

However, Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth senior military analyst Ronen Bergman disputes those who doubt Hezbollah’s strength.

Bergman writes in an article for Bloomberg News that Hezbollah has more military power than many of the world’s countries.

“Ever since it forced the Israelis’ panicky retreat from Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah has been building up an immense military force, with firepower that 90 percent of the world’s countries don’t possess, according to Meir Dagan, the former director of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency,” Bergman wrote.

Although Berti says she doesn’t believe Hezbollah has the manpower to capture and occupy territory, Bergman said in his article that Hezbollah may have a much wider objective in their sights.

“Hezbollah’s launching of a pilotless spy plane, which was shot down by Israel’s air force in the southern part of the country in early October, has been seen as more evidence that the Lebanese militia is preparing for war,” Bergman wrote.

“No doubt it was collecting information in case of another confrontation with Israel, but whether the terrorist group is seeking a full-blown war is a more complicated question that may depend less on what Hezbollah wants than on the heat it is getting from its patrons,” Bergman wrote.

Bergman adds that whether they have the force numbers to occupy territory, Hezbollah is nonetheless a well-armed force.

“The group’s possession of so sophisticated a craft (which was assembled from Iranian-made parts) is further evidence that Hezbollah is the most advanced and best-equipped militia of its kind the world has ever seen,” Bergman wrote.

Hezbollah terrorist absolved in Iraq – US failed foreign policy

Editor’s Note – Once again we want to post a story that points out how ludicrous it is that people think that Obama has one major asset that Romney does not have – foreign policy experience. Yes he does have more, the trouble is, its a long and consistent list of failures.

When this administration blew the negotiations to leave troops in Iraq, they forgot one guy, Ali Mussa Daqduq. A man responsible for five American deaths. Just how do you screw up that badly? Of course they spun that one to sound like it was what they were aiming for, due to his campaign promises, but once again, the truth is, the “keystone Kops” in the Obama administration got “punk’d” by Iraq. Now we see Iraq quickly melting into chaos and the hegemony of Iran.

Iraqi Court Absolves Terrorist Freed By U.S. After Killing Soldiers

Judicial Watch

Surprise, surprise the Hezbollah terrorist released by the Obama Administration to Iraq out of respect for the country’s sovereignty won’t make it to the U.S. to face trial for killing five American soldiers.

We all knew this would happen back in December when the commander-in-chief handed over the Lebanese militant, Ali Mussa Daqduq, to Iraqi officials. A mainstream newspaper presented it as a“dilemma” for the president as American troops prepared to exit Iraq. Daqduq had been in U.S. military custody in Iraq since 2007 for his involvement in a carefully orchestrated plot that killed, kidnapped and tortured American military officers.

The atrocities took place in a city called Karbala, south of Baghdad in early 2007. Around a dozen terrorists dressed in U.S. military uniforms opened fire on Americans after approaching a camp in five sports utility vehicles resembling U.S. transports. One U.S. soldier died at the scene and four others were kidnapped, tortured and executed. Daqduq, a Hezbollah commander, was the mastermind.

But President Obama didn’t want to remove the terrorist from Iraq without permission from the country, in order not to violate its sovereignty. He also refused to take Daqduq to the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Cuba, which houses other high-value terrorists, because the facility is an anathema in the Middle East and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki would not approve the “unacceptable” Guantanamo option.

So Obama handed Daqduq over to the Iraqis even though several members of congress pointed out that it would be the same as freeing him. Apparently, Iraq pinky promised to hold him accountable for murdering our soldiers. No one, probably not even Obama, really believed that and this week a nationalnewswire story confirmed it.

It turns out that two Iraqi courts have found Daqduq not guilty of masterminding the 2007 raid on an American military base and just a few days ago the nation’s central criminal court ordered that he be freed immediately. As far as the Iraqis are concerned, the legal case against him is over. That’s why authorities there refused the Obama Administration’s joke of an extradition request.

This may lead some to wonder if the administration really thought Iraq ever even toyed with idea of extraditing Duqduq, who is considered a hero among Islamists? The official line is that the government believes the Hezbollah commander is a top threat to Americans in the Middle East, which is why the U.S. even bothered filing the delusional extradition request.

The Iraqi court’s decision ends the Obama Administration’s laughable, last-ditch efforts to prosecute Daqduq. A Pentagon spokesman said Daqduq “should be held accountable for his crimes” and that the U.S. “”will continue to work closely with the Iraqi government to explore all legal options to pursue justice in this case.” The first part sounds good, but the second part is a crock.