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.

Gaza – War Crimes Against Humanity, Who are the True Culprits?

Editor’s Note – With all the hand wringing and accusations that Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza, who really is the war criminal? Palestinian supporters who act as if Hamas is a legitimate governmental entity need to learn a lot about the laws of war and what it means to provide support for a terrorist entity.

The only war crimes committed come from perpetrators in Gaza, not from beyond. Every argument the Palestinians/Hamas and their supporters use is actually proof of their own crimes. Collateral damage and death is solely the responsibility of Hamas because they caused the circumstances – with full knowledge and by design. Law is based in intent – Hamas intends to commit war crimes, Israelis intend the opposite, but cannot stand idly by just because they are far stronger.

Gaza and their supporters claim Israel is committing genocide!
Gaza and their supporters claim Israel is committing genocide!

Of course, according to Hamas/Palestinians and their supporters, the actions of Hamas are somehow justified, yet Israel’s responses with force are not. Why? Because Israel is blockading Gaza. Of course, even that accusation has little basis in reality, but since when did reality matter to the romanticism of all things Palestinian?

They forget that Egypt is also participating in the blockade, and aid has been provided by the Israelis and others since Hamas took over and it is the source of all the supplies to create the terror tunnels.

The other question to ask is why UNWRA has failed so miserably, despite billions in aid and 65 years of effort. The answer is that UNWRA is complicit and the UN itself is propagating the problems through dubious accusations to keep the money flowing. What has UNWRA really done since 1949?

UNRWA actually employs many from Hamas in its cottage industry, and it is in their best interests to keep the poor Palestinians stuck in a cycle of misery, much by their own hands. People have spent their entire professional careers working for UNRWA – quite a stable job isn’t it?

Irrational support for Hamas/Palestine (Including other terror organizations in Gaza) is as irrational as accusing Israel of war crimes when no nation on Earth has ever practiced such caution in war. In the article below, we see exactly how the laws of nations in war have been transgressed, repeatedly, for years and years, by the Palestinians and their enablers at UNWRA.

For 90 Minutes, Jewish Leaders Tell UN’s Ban Ki-moon About Hamas Abuses, List 19 War Crimes

By Joshua Levitt – The Algemeiner

For a full 90 minutes on Wednesday, Jewish leaders told United Nations Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon about the litany of abuses of international rules of warfare – 19 in total – by Hamas in Gaza.

HamasHidingPlacesThe group included Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, directors of The Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman, Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and representatives from B’nai Brith and Hadassah.

Rabbi Cooper told The Algemeiner on Thursday, “Bottom line, the Jewish world will have to be more proactive on the international stage, not only to defend Israel, but ourselves as well. We will continue to interact with Ban Ki Moon to insure that this important leader will be more responsive.”

In a follow-up note to Ban after their meeting, the SWC rabbis summed up the argument they presented. They said that “we must frankly ask you how many times will the world allow itself to be held hostage by Hamas? This is the third time since 2005 when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza that Hamas has brought death and destruction to the people of Gaza. Once again they are using the people of Gaza, the civilian infrastructure and UN facilities in its non-stop campaign to terrorize the Jewish state.”

During the 90 minute meeting, according to Rabbi Cooper, the SWC urged the UN to announce an official inquiry into the use of various UNRWA schools by Hamas to store and launch rockets for the benefit of the UN’s own reputation. They also called on the UN not to permit the UNRWA to supervise the billions in reconstruction funds expected for Gaza.

“The systematic hijacking of previous aid, cement, and building materials by Hamas to build an underground superhighway of terror is scandalous and a violation of the wishes of the donors who did not contribute funds for rockets or tunnels,” they said. “Those who failed to stop such theft and serial abuse of humanitarian aid, must be held accountable and should not have any involvement in supervising or dispersing of future funds.”

They also said that work shouldn’t begin until “the total disarming of Hamas and the destruction of all of the thousands of rockets and missiles Hamas still harbors.”

The Jewish human rights group that works to protect Jews against anti-Semitism also raised that core issue with Ban. “There has been an explosion of anti-Semitism and genocidal hatred against Israel from Europe to Australia,” they said. “Rather than denouncing this toxic situation Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, contributed to it by being so rabidly one-sided in her criticisms of Israel.”

“During her tenure there was no effort to investigate previous crimes against humanity by Hamas, including its own admission that 160 Palestinian children died building their terrorism tunnels. Her behavior demands a public censure from the Secretary General.”rocket-fired-by-gaza-terrorists-in-palestine-towards-israel

They asked that “with a human rights disaster of epic proportions in Syria, with ethnic cleansing in Iraq, with a difficult situation in Ukraine and with continuing human rights outrages in North Korea,” the upcoming UN General Assembly “not be allowed to degenerate into an anti-Israel hate fest,” and noted that the UNGA will coincide with the Jewish High Holy Days.

“Anymore demonization of Israel emanating from the halls of the United Nations will only contribute to anti-Semitism globally,” they said.

To hammer home their point about Hamas violating human rights, although Israel is accused of doing so by the UN Human Rights Commission, the SWC rabbis left Ban with a detailed list they compiled of the 19 violations made by Hamas, with full notes and citations for Ban to reflect upon.

In further comments to The Algemeiner, Rabbi Cooper said Ban “refused to get involved with the travesty at UN Human Rights Council.”

Read the SWC’s list of Hamas’s 19 violations of the rules of war:

1) Hamas’ rocket attacks directed at Israel’s civilian population centers deliberately violates the basic principles of distinction (Additional Protocol I, arts. 48, 51(2), 52(1).) Any doubt about this is resolved by the fact that Hamas itself has boasted of its intention to hit population centres. It is well accepted in customary international law that intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities constitutes a war crime. (Rome Statute, art. 8(2)(b)(i))

Shujaiya-32) Staging of Attacks From Residential Areas and Protected Sites: The Law of Armed Conflict not only prohibits targeting an enemy’s civilians; it also requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish their combatant forces from their own civilians, and not to base operations in or near civilian structures, especially protected sites such as schools, medical facilities and places of worship. As the customary law principle is reflected in Article 51(7) of Additional Protocol I: The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or shield, favor or impede military operations.

3) Use of Civilian Homes and Public Institutions as Bases of Operation – see (2) for citations.

4) Misuse of Medical Facilities and Ambulances – Any time Hamas uses an ambulance to transport its fighters it is violating the Law of Armed Conflict: Under Article 23(f) of the 1907 Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which reflects customary international law, it is especially forbidden … [t]o make improper use of a flag of truce, … as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention. Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1949)also provides that: … the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground … may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments…

5) Booby-trapping of Civilian Areas – see (2) for citations.

6) Blending in with Civilians and Use of Human Shields – As the ICRC rule states, lilt can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.

7) Exploitation of Children – Hamas has paramilitary summer camps for kids. There are reports, from this war and previous ones, of children fighting and being used for tunnel digging. violates the Law of Armed Conflict, including prohibitions against allowing children to take part in hostilities. As customary international law is reflected in this regard in Additional Protocol I, the parties to a conflict must take “all feasible measures” to ensure that children lido not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. (Additional Protocol I, art. 77(2))UNWRA

8 ) Interference with Humanitarian Relief Efforts – While Israel kept its end of humanitarian truces. Hamas used them to shoot rockets into Israel, including the Kerem Shalom crossing where humanitarian goods are brought into Gaza. All of these actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict, which requires parties to allow the entry of humanitarian supplies and to guarantee their safety. Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires parties in an armed conflict to permit the free passage of [humanitarian] consignments and shall guarantee their protection. Article 60 of the same Convention protects the shipments from being diverted from their intended purpose, something Hamas has certainly done in the past and is reported to have done in this conflict as well.

9) Hostage-taking – The Fourth Geneva Conventions, article 34, says flatly “The taking of hostages is prohibited.” This is not an “arrest” as Israel-haters claim, and this is not a prisoner of war situation as Hamas has made clear – the purpose of Hamas’ hostage-taking falls under the definition on the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages: “Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the “hostage “) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages (“hostage-taking ‘) within the meaning of this Convention.

10) Using the uniform of the enemy – Additional Protocol I prohibits the use of enemy flags, military emblems, insignia or uniforms “while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations”. [3] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “making improper use … of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts when it results in death or serious personal injury. [4] According to some, this is considered perfidy, a war crime. (h/t Joshua)

11) Violence aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population – Rule 2 of ICRC’s Customary IHL is Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. II It quotes Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I prohibits “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population”. Hamas rockets are aimed not only at killing civilians, but also at spreading terror among Israelis.

12)Targeting civilian objects, such as airports or nuclear power plants – Rule 7 of the Customary IHL says “Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects, quoting Articles 48 and 52(2)of Additional Protocol I.

Who started the need for a blockade, and who wasted millions on tunnels?
Who started the need for a blockade, and who wasted millions on tunnels?

13. Indiscriminate attacks – Besides targeting civilians and civilian objects, Rule 11 of the ICRC CIHL states flatly that “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. II By definition, every Qassam rocket attack and most of the other rocket and mortar attacks are by their very nature indiscriminate. See also Rule 71, “The use of weapons which are by nature indiscriminate is prohibited.

14) Proportionality in attack – ICRC’s Rule 14 states “Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited. Rocket attacks against civilians have zero military advantage, so by definition they are disproportionate to their military advantage. See also Rule 18: “Each party to the conflict must do everything feasible to assess whether the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

15)Advance Warning – Rule 20 of the ICRC CIHL states “Each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. Given that Hamas has used the media and SMS calls to threaten Israelis, it is clear that they have the ability to warn before every rocket attack. Their failure to do so is a violation of IHL.

16) Protecting civilians – Rule 22 of the ICRC Customary IHL states, “The parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks. Hamas not only has failed to protect civilians in Gaza by building bomb shelters, they have deliberately put civilians in harm’s way.

17) Attacking medical units – Rule 28 states, Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. Hamas has shot mortars at the Israeli field hospital, set up for Gazans, near the Erez crossing.

18) Protection of Journalists – Hamas has threatened journalists, implicitly and explicitly, accusing some of being spies and sometimes not allowing them to leave Gaza, making them effectively hostages. Rule 34 states “Civilian journalists engaged in professional missions in areas of armed conflict must be respected and protected as long as they are not taking a direct part in hostilities.

19) Mistreating the dead. Rule 113 says, Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited. Hamas has shown off an alleged chip cut out from the (presumably) dead body of Shaul Orono.

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.

Israel, Gaza – Rockets Fly, We Must Not Lose Focus on Iran

Editor’s Note – It sure is a “noisy” world of late. Each week we see the overwhelming information fly by, and just when we think it got busy, events ramp up by an order of magnitude. The blur cannot be allowed to take focus off of important events that seem to have taken a back seat, especially in the American Media.

As the world searches for the missing Malaysian flight 370, the 777 missing for almost a week; as Vladimir Putin appears to have won Crimea without a single bullet drawing blood outside of Kiev; as the IRS/Lois Lerner Scandal blooms, as Benghazi remains unsolved, and the carnage in Syria continues unabated, another Obama/Kerry foreign policy fiasco unfolds. John Kerry, how is that “framework” working out for all parties now?

This week, the Israelis captured a Panamanian flagged vessel, the Klos-C was shipping tons of Iranian arms to Gaza. On Monday, Netayahu revealed:

Israel Navy ships brought a commercial vessel found carrying powerful Iranian rockets to Eilat Port on Saturday evening. The IDF is to carry out a close inspection of the ship and study the weapons on board, which were destined for the Gaza Strip.
Israel Navy ships brought a commercial vessel found carrying powerful Iranian rockets to Eilat Port on Saturday evening.

Netanyahu unveiled the massive arsenal of weapons that Israeli Navy commandos seized aboard the arms ship Klos-C, which was intercepted in the Red Sea last week. The Israeli military announced on Sunday that it offloaded 40 M-302 missiles, 181 122-mm mortars and 400,000 7.62 caliber bullets from the containers aboard the ship. (From Algemeiner.)

Netanyahu even pockets a bullet from the capture:

While presenting to worldwide media outlets on Monday the weapons seized from an Iranian arms ship last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was filmed pocketing one of the estimated 400,000 bullets found on board, Israel’s Channel 2 reported.

Netanyahu intends to show the projectile to world leaders as evidence of the Islamic Republic’s active involvement in the arming of terrorist organizations, Channel 2 said. (Read the rest at Algemeiner.)

Then Palestinian Hamas terrorists in Gaza launched on Israel and Netanyahu promised retaliation:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday evening at a press conference in Jerusalem that Israel will respond “forcefully” to the barrage of at least 60 rockets that were fired at southern Israel earlier in the day, Israel’s Walla reported.

“If there won’t be quiet in the south, there will be noise in Gaza, and this is an understatement,” the prime minister promised. “We will not be deterred from harming those who try to harm us, and we will continue to respond forcefully against terrorists in the Gaza Strip.” (Read the rest here at Algemeiner.)

Not only did Israel respond with its own rockets, by a factor of less than one-third, they also prepared for a possible incursion:

IDF tanks fired into Gaza over the past several minutes, and have already eliminated two terror targets, in response to the barrage of rocket fire on Israel.  At least 60 rockets slammed into southern Israel on Wednesday, hitting several Jewish communities. (Read more at Arutz-Sheva.)

Peace in “Palestine,” not as long as there are people calling themselves “Palestinians!” Mr. Kerry – Middle East lesson number [XXX, too many to count], it is not going to work as long as there are “Palestinians.”

If the “Palestinians” disarmed today, peace would break out, if Israel disarmed, there would be no more Israel – funny how that works Mr. Kerry, Mr. Obama!

Rockets launched from Gaza Strip answered with Israeli airstrikes

By Batsheva Sobelman and Rushdi Abu Alouf – LA Times

JERUSALEM–In the heaviest barrage in more than a year, dozens of rockets were launched at southern Israel from the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, drawing condemnation from Israel’s political leadership and swift retaliation by its military.

At least 60 rockets and mortar shells were fired in rapid succession over a two-hour period. At least eight hit urban or open areas, according to Israel’s army, while several others were intercepted by Israel’s mobile air-defense system, Iron Dome.

There were no immediate reports of casualties.

As the air raid sirens subsided, Israeli residents within about 25 miles of the border with Gaza were instructed to remain within running distance of bomb shelters and concrete-reinforced safe rooms.

%CODE%

After launching aircraft to identify the source of fire, Israel’s military first responded with artillery and, according to an army statement, hit “two terrorist targets” in the southern and northern parts of the strip. Israeli airstrikes were also underway, targeting dozens of locations in the Gaza Strip, according to news media reports.

In Gaza, the military wing of Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the barrage. In a statement, the organization called it a response to the “crimes of the Zionist enemy in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip,” the latest of which, it said, was the killing of three of its operatives in an airstrike Tuesday.

Iranian Rockets found on board.
Iranian Rockets found on board.

According to Israel’s military, Tuesday’s airstrike targeted the militant squad after it fired a projectile at Israel.

Speaking in the Knesset on Wednesday evening, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would not be deterred and would continue defending itself “against the terrorist organizations in Gaza.”

In a meeting between President Shimon Peres and visiting British Prime Minister David Cameron, both leaders addressed the flare-up.

“It’s a very severe attack,” said Peres, who urged the people of Gaza to choose: “It’s either peace or violence.” He cautioned the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip that they “can’t have it both ways.”

Cameron condemned the rocket attacks as targeting civilians indiscriminately, calling the strikes “barbaric.”

The attacks from Gaza illustrate Israel’s need for security and should make clear to Palestinians that “there is no violent route” to statehood, which can only be achieved by dialogue and “thorough agreement,” Cameron said.

During a special security consultation Wednesday evening, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said that if Israel had no calm, neither would Gaza “in such a way that will make Islamic Jihad terrorists regret their shooting.”

Yaalon said if Hamas couldn’t impose calm, Israel would do it.

Yaalon has ordered the crossings between Gaza and Israel closed pending further security assessments, with exceptions for humanitarian needs.

Wednesday’s rocket fire was the fiercest since Israel’s weeklong military campaign against Gaza in November 2012 that ended in an informal cease-fire.

A spokesman for Islamic Jihad in Gaza said the attack came in response to aggression “and does not mean the collapse of the cease-fire agreement.”

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the United States condemned the attacks from the Gaza Strip into Israel.

“We call for these terrorist attacks to cease immediately,” Psaki said. “Israel, like any nation, has a right to defend itself.”

The replacement of Truth by narrative and myth – 3 grand scams

Editor’s Note – How is it that people from outside this nation who observe us closely know more about our collective ignorance than we do? This article by a Canadian writer nails it down precisely. Three grand scams, the ‘Palestinian’ narrative, the ‘global climate change’ scam, and then there is the ascent of Obama!

The Three Great Scams of Our Time

The replacement of Truth by narrative and myth.

By DAVID SOLWAYPJ Media

“Don’t disturb the order of the world, storyteller.”

– Mario Vargas Llosa, The Storyteller.

Corruption, delusion, and mendacity are nothing new as determinants of both personal and collective life. They are staples of human nature. But with the spread of the print and electronic media and the immediate accessibility of information at any time and any place in the “global village,” the opportunity for mass deception has become the distinguishing factor of our time. Sophistry and subterfuge have gone mainstream. The ability of dominant elites to influence and even control the thought-world of vast populations to an historically unprecedented extent is now an integral part of contemporary life.

There are, to be sure, various ancillary elements involved in the ubiquitous public hospitality to blatant fictions and professional guile, including the critical decay of education at all levels and the growing proneness to parasitical entitlements among Western electorates, accentuating the appetite for passivity and stoking what amounts to a handout mentality. A populace coddled by welfare gratuities will accept packaged ideas and doctored reports as readily as they do food stamps, tax exemptions, and government checks.

As a result, intellectual laziness has never been so widespread in a pampered and ostensibly enlightened cultural realm, providing a soft target for media disinformation and political propaganda to work their injurious will. (It must be admitted that even the dispensers of such concoctions are often under the spell of their own stupefactions.) Nothing else, it would appear, can explain the reflexive acceptance among those who should know better of the three consummate trumperies disfiguring the era in which we live: the Palestinian “narrative,” the climate change shakedown, and the ascent of Barack Obama to the most powerful office in the world. Truth is now at a discount as never before and has been increasingly replaced by promiscuous and sovereign mythologies.

1. In a recent “Nakba Day” speech delivered by a Palestinian official on behalf of Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was informed that the Jews have no historical right to the land of Israel.

“We say that the nation of Palestine upon the land of Canaan had a 7,000-year history B.C.E. This is the truth, which must be understood, and we have to note it, in order to say: ‘Netanyahu, you are incidental in history. We are the people of history. We are the owners of history.’”

This speech was a follow-up to an incendiary rant Abbas addressed to the UN General Assembly on September 23, 2011. Standing before a regional map from which Israel had been erased, Abbas insisted that Israel had no connection to the Holy Land, which he claimed was exclusively Islamic and Christian, and received an ovation for his efforts. In an opinion piece in the Washington Post in December 2011, Maen Rashid Areikat, the PLO representative to the United Nations, glossed Abbas’ fictive account of the antiquity of the so-called “Palestinian nation,” declaring that Palestinians had “lived under the rule of a plethora of empires: the Canaanites, Egyptians, Philistines, Israelites, Persians, Greeks, Crusaders, Mongols, Ottomans, and finally, the British.” As Alexander Yoffe comments in a comprehensive article in the Middle East Quarterly aptly titled “The Rhetoric of Nonsense,” such unadulterated hogwash offers “not only…an indication of unwavering Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist but…an insightful glimpse into the psyche of their willfully duped Western champions.”

As I wrote in Hear, O Israel!, the historical record conclusively shows not only that there was never any such thing as a Palestinian nation but also that there is no Palestinian ethnicity—in the sense that there is a Jewish or Tibetan ethnicity—and that there was no coherent political grouping known as “Palestinians” until after the 1967 war. A Palestinian entity was only recognized by the Arab countries at the 1974 Rabat Summit conference. (Although the Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded in 1964—before there were any “Territories” to be “liberated”—it was largely an Egyptian affair controlled by Gamel Abdel Nasser.) Indeed, 1967 is the founding year of the hypothesis now known as “Palestine.”

The designation “Palestinians” was not in official use under the Ottoman Empire and the British applied the term only to the Jewish inhabitants of the region. Local Arabs rejected the term “Palestine” and pressed for “Southern Syria” and even “Iraq.” Many Arab place names are mutations of the original Hebrew, which, in the words of American trial attorney Matthew Hausman, “evidence Jewish habitation dating from Biblical times,” before the Arab invaders appeared on the scene. Eli Hertz, president of Myths and Facts Inc., points out that the Territories “are filled with families named Elmisri (Egyptian), Chalabi (Syrian), Mugrabi (North African)”; and Habash, the surname of arch-terrorist George Habash, originates in Ethiopia (MythsandFacts.com, May 16, 2008). These emigrant families were not driven out over the historical continuum as they contend—they were never there in the first place. As Zahir Muhsein of the Palestinian National Council told the Dutch newspaper Trouw as far back as 1977, “The Palestinian people does not exist. … Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people…to oppose Zionism.” Similarly, Yasser Arafat himself, in the authorized political biography written by Alan Hart, affirmed that the “Palestinian people have no national identity.” Arafat intended to confer identity “though conflict with Israel.”

Joan Peters has shown in her  scrupulously researched seven-year study From Time Immemorial, examining census reports and internal memoranda during the British Mandate, that a significant proportion of the “original” Palestinian inhabitants were relative newcomers to the territory in dispute, having migrated into the Holy Land from the surrounding Arab countries, mainly from what was then known as Greater Syria (i.e., Syria and Lebanon) when still part of the Ottoman hegemony, and afterwards during the post-Balfour period. Between 1932 and 1944 half a million mendicant Arabs poured into Palestine to profit from conditions prevailing in the Jewish communities. The framers of the UN partition plan of 1947 seemed to agree, giving—to quote Hausman again—“no consideration of Palestinian claims because Palestinian nationality had not yet been invented.” The Palestinian “narrative” is a synthetic contrivance whose textual repertory is, for the most part, either forged or imagined.

Why, then, the pathological obsession with the Palestinian cause, the acceptance of the Palestinian figment of dispossession (the so-called Nakba), and the winking at the Palestinian terror franchises, the anti-Jewish incitement industry, and the genocidal charters of both Fatah and Hamas? The answer is self-evident: Israel. For the creation of “Palestine”—along with the “right of return” for an army of millions of ginned-up “refugees”—is the most effective way to shrink and destabilize the Jewish state and render it increasingly vulnerable to successful attack by the surrounding Muslim nations, which is the primary reason that Western elites support the claims, strategies, and demands of the Palestinian leadership. Western leaders, the liberal political class, Third World leeches and various autocratic regimes are not genuinely interested in the confection of a Palestinian state. A loose collection of clans calling themselves a “people” or a “nation” with neither historical backing nor political warrant, and that offers nothing of value to the world at large, is, or should be, by any reasonable estimation of peripheral importance.

The agenda in play is something quite different, in part an effort to curry favor with the Islamic umma, homegrown jihadists, and oil sheikhs; and, allied with this concern, the intent to drain the lifeblood of the troublesome Zionist upstart. The spurious Palestinian “narrative” is only the flip side of a malingering and inexcisable antisemitism masking as anti-Zionism. The real purpose of the great Palestinian scam is to deprive Israel of the very right to exist as a home and refuge for the Jewish people.

2. The second great scam is, of course, the canard of global warming or climate change.

All sensible people are concerned with preserving the natural environment—this is one of the central themes of Mario Vargas Llosa’s The Storyteller, cited in the epigraph. But when environmentalists run amok and start trading in panic scenarios, revering false prophets, relying on specious measurements and statistics, crediting counterfeit procedures and pre-programmed computer models that crank out what they want to see, and cooking up apocryphal stories that no self-respecting “habladore” would dream of telling, it is incumbent upon us to mount the most strenuous opposition.

In his pithy and valuable account Understanding the Global Warming Hoax, retired physicist Leo Johnson does exactly this, furnishing a damning list of twelve major blunders made by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and 32 global warming myths that should instantly disqualify the alarmist project, replete with disruptive recommendations, from consideration. He continues: “The reports of the IPCC provide a permanent record of misrepresentation, erroneous data, deceit, scientific fraud, and political corruption of science.” He goes on to show how the great imposture is endorsed by academia, the political establishment, the media, religious hucksters and environmental groups—indeed, as he wryly remarks, “the greatest threat to humanity and the environment is the environmentalists.” Johnson’s short study is among the most devastating—and irrefutable—exposures of the tangle of lies, fictions, and fudge factors that power the theory of a “human-caused biotic holocaust.”

There is clearly a popular fascination with the presumed fate of Mother Earth at the barbarous hands of fallen mankind, an obsession with cultic overtones generally signifying a hunger for spiritual nourishment and longed-for redemption that goes otherwise unsatisfied in the secular West. As James Lovelock, who developed the Gaia theory—the Earth as a single, living, semidivine organism—and who until recently was the darling of the Greens, has deposed in an MSNBC interview: “It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion.” Lovelock observed: “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use. … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are.” I suppose we should be grateful that Father Lovelock has now confessed that his views on imminent global warming were “alarmist.” Even so, the climate covenanters are not to be deterred as they seek devoutly to create “an anticarbon nirvana that will never come to pass” (Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2012).

But there is more to it than a substitute faith based on guilt and subliminal self-loathing. In fact, liberal environmentalism is the cutting edge of the movement for bureaucratized state control of both private life and free market economics, not only conscripting the media, the NGOs, government departments, the education sector, and the intellectual classes to advance its agenda, but also shrewdly operating through the very corporations it seeks to regulate by offering tax and other incentives to ensure acquiescence. Environmentalism has become the salvation of the Left after the collapse of communism and the failures of technocratic socialism.

Speaking at the Heartland Institute’s 2011 Seventh International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who lived for many years under the Soviet yoke, warned his listeners about the climate change votaries: “For them, the temperature data are just an instrument in their plans to change the world, to suppress human freedom, to bring people back to underdevelopment. Their ideas are the ideas of ideologues, not of scientists or climatologists” (Financial Post, May 29, 2012). If we do not awaken in time, we might one day find ourselves living under a regime that would in many ways resemble the communist nightmare from which half of Europe has only recently emerged.

It is fair to say that the ideology of man-made global warming is one conspiracy that really is a conspiracy. It has reached the point where it must be maintained by the omission of details, the distortion of scale and pattern, and the suspicious liability to error. The plot had already thickened in 1989 when the late Stephen Schneider, professor of environmental biology and global change at Stanford University and a vociferous global warmist—who twenty years earlier had been warning the world of an advancing ice age—wrote: “So we have to offer scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have” (Detroit News Editorial, November 22, 1989). Twenty years later, in November 2009, the Hadley Climate Research Unit was hacked, releasing thousands of files suggesting a covert mega-operation to propagate an anthropogenic global warming myth.

John Kerry’s June 19, 2012 floor speech to Congress urging his compatriots to fight the “insidious conspiracy of silence on climate change…where truth should prevail” and challenging skeptics to “prove us wrong or stand down” is a perfect example of political manipulation and bad faith. There is no such silence except that imposed by the media. The only conspiracy is to be found among government-funded climate change berserkers. Kerry—who is obviously deeply unread—has failed to prove his own assertions, relying instead on anecdotal rumours about wilting azaleas. But the politics of money and power—higher taxes on the middles classes and the wealthy, enrichment schemes for carbon brokers and fishy green industries, limits on individual freedoms under the expansion of statist control—rides on the deeper, rhizomatous sense of spiritual vacuity that characterizes the modern age. In effect, political science has coalesced with dominical theology.

Thankfully, there is a rapidly growing and easily accessible adversarial bibliography on the subject of climate change that anyone interested in the global warming controversy might do well to consult. The scientific expertise assembled in these books, written by such reputable authorities as Fred Singer, Robert Zubrin, Lawrence Solomon, Ian Plimer, Brian Sussman, A.W. Montford, Steven Milloy, Nigel Lawson, Senator James Inhofe, and many others, cannot honorably be ignored or discounted. Mark Levin’s chapter “On Enviro-Statism” in his Liberty and Tyranny provides an incisional critique of the various stages of the global warming hoax and how it functions as an instrument of statist control of civil society. Further, the number of reputable analytical studies exploding the AGW myth is now legion. As if this were not enough, on May 19, 2008, 32,000 dissenting scientists issued the Oregon petition disavowing the alarmist assertions of scammers like Al Gore and the IPCC. This prestigious group of skeptics (or “deniers” as they are called), which includes a veritable who’s who of American scientists, is fifteen times larger than those scientists involved in one way or another, directly or marginally, with the IPCC.

The petition states in part: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

“How might anyone of clear mind,” asks Marc Sheppard, rhetorically, in American Thinker, “consider these words from these numbers and still accept claims of scientific consensus?” Will the MSM, the IPCC, the compromised scientists, and myriad politicians who have invested in their species of junk science actually ponder, let alone honestly acknowledge, the authenticity of the petition? Sheppard answers: “As the [real] science no longer appears to concern any of them—don’t hold your CO2 polluted breath.” A global juggernaut is hard to derail even as it hurtles toward environmental, political, and economic disaster.

3. I have been following the ascent of Barack Obama from early in the Democratic primaries—when he surfed on a wave of clichés, bromides, plagiarisms, gaffes, promises, and outright fabrications to the nomination—up to the present moment when he began to be exposed as arguably the most disingenuous and destructive president in the history of the United States. I found it hard to believe that he had succeeded in conning the majority of his countrymen (and much of the West). True, he enjoyed the material assistance of the consensus media in what was both a massive cover-up of his dubious formative and intellectual influences and an equally massive promotional campaign. Nonetheless, how a largely unvetted nonentity with a winning manner could so effectively beguile even a dumbed-down electorate is nothing short of grotesque.

I am not an American and can scarcely regard myself as a political wonk or legitimate pundit—my interests lie elsewhere—yet even from a distance it seemed obvious to me four years ago that Obama was an arrant fraud, an Alinsky-inspired subversive, a far-Left politicopath of obscure provenance intimate with a host of tainted mentors and friends, and ultimately a greater threat to his nation than Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Osama bin Laden, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. One did not need to be Argus-eyed to spot the glaringly inescapable, unless one were either thoroughly indoctrinated or suicidally delusional.

The latest revelation about Obama’s lack of candor—to put it mildly—has reconfirmed the intuition that he was a scoundrel from the get-go. “[T]he thirty eight documented falsehoods in the president’s memoir Dreams from My Father…revealed by David Maraniss’s new book Barack Obama: The Story,” writes Roger Simon, make it clear that “the president is a liar.” Edward Klein’s just-published The Amateur, garnished with a trove of insider information, only reaffirms that this president is quite possibly the shallowest, least prepared, and most self-infatuated, mercurial, and duplicitous man ever to sit in the Oval Office, bar none. Nixon, Carter, and Clinton seem like choirboys in comparison.

And yet, the man who has broken nearly every campaign promise; who has turned the White House into a banquet hall; who has led his nation to the brink of insolvency; who thrives on class warfare; who has placed a major portion of his resumé under seal; whose publicity bio for his first (and unpublished) book gave his birthplace as Kenya and was not revised until shortly after he declared his bid for the presidency sixteen years later; who often appears to prefer golfing to governing and debases the gravity of his office with tasteless and frivolous performances on late-night comedy television; who flouts Congress with impunity; who passes major legislation in the dead of night; who plainly has no love for the American Constitution; who ties up industry and commerce with senseless regulations; who is not averse to ceding national authority to the United Nations; who labors to import the collapsing European social model of economic syndicalism, public sector expansion, and dirigiste supervision into American life; who promotes the fortunes of the Muslim Brotherhood, thus imperiling American security and national interests; who relies on the possibly illegitimate exercise of executive privilege to suppress critical intelligence, as in the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal, while at the same time apparently leaking sensitive data to the press in order to augment his image; who prosecutes whistleblowers under the 1917 Espionage Act; who instructs his Department of Justice to sue states intent on cleaning up the electoral rolls peppered with dead, illegal, and multiple voters (who will obviously cast their ballots for the Democrats); and who has alienated America’s traditional allies and befriended its most feral enemies—this man continues to bask in significant acclaim and support. He may even be re-elected, despite the fact that Obama in his very person represents and embodies the greatest—and most transparent—scam the presidency has ever suffered.

Andrew Klavan justly remarks in an article deploring the president’s egregious lack of character: “Again and again, he reveals himself to be wholly a product of the anti-American, anti-liberal and anti-democratic left at odds with the principles of our founding.” Still, sentient human beings will continue to vote for him. There is only one word for this: unbelievable.

The madness, hypocrisy, and outright stupidity that are sweeping the world almost defy comprehension. The Palestinian faux “narrative,” the environmental craze, and the Obama myth are the three great examples of the way the flimflam racket works, predicated on the self-interest of the ruseful idiots who know how to game the system, the malfeasance of a politically indoctrinated media imperium, and the gullibility of a mass popular audience lobotomized into compliance by a failing intellectual culture.

These three chimeras generally manifest the morbid sense of victimhood and hatred of the modern West that is the most contemptible and dangerous feature of our contemporary world. Israel is a tiny outpost of enlightened modernity that the world wants to see snuffed out and replaced by medieval barbarism and tribal fanaticism; the global warming hoaxers want to roll back technological progress to a condition like that well before the industrial revolution, even before the rise of agrarian societies; and Barack Obama is the first president of the United States who actually despises—and has stated overtly his desire to “fundamentally transform”—the founding principles and way of life of the freest and most dynamic society ever known.

What sustains these programs of dissolution is not truth but a semblance of truth rooted in fantasy, misrepresentation, invention, and dinning repetition. Serious critique and sincere skepticism are dismissed as mere conspiracy, as disrupting the recitals we have come dotingly to believe in. Myth is received as reality and “narrative” euchres objective analysis and the pursuit of fact. In our fable-ready time, the real story is the story itself. This is where we are today. Where we will be tomorrow does not inspire confidence.

________________________

David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, was released by Mantua Books.