Obama Officials to Israel: Like It Or Not, “Palestinians” Will Get State; “We Need Another Intifada”

“US officials: Even if Israel doesn’t like it, Palestinians will get state,” Times of Israel, May 3, 2014:

From left: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Barack Obama and PA President Mahmoud Abbas during a trilateral meeting in New York, Sept. 22, 2009 (photo credit: Avi Ohayon/GPO/Flash90)
American officials directly involved in the failed Israeli-Palestinian peace process over the last nine months gave a leading Israeli columnist a withering assessment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the negotiations, indicated that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has completely given up on the prospect of a negotiated solution, and warned Israel that the Palestinians will achieve statehood come what may — either via international organizations or through violence.
Speaking on condition of anonymity to Nahum Barnea, a prominent columnist from Israel’s best-selling daily Yedioth Aharonoth, the officials highlighted Netanyahu’s ongoing settlement construction as the issue “largely to blame” for the failure of Secretary of State John Kerry’s July 2013-April 2014 effort to broker a permanent peace accord.
They made plain that US President Barack Obama had been prepared to release spy-for-Israel Jonathan Pollard to salvage the talks. And they warned that “the world will not keep tolerating the Israeli occupation.”
Barnea, who described his conversations with the American officials as “the closest thing to an official American version of what happened” in the talks, said the secretary is now deciding whether to wait a few months and try to renew the negotiating effort or to publicize the US’s suggested principles of an agreement.
Detailing how the US sought to solve disputes over the core issues of a two-state solution, Barnea wrote on Friday that, “Using advanced software, the Americans drew a border outline in the West Bank that gives Israel sovereignty over some 80 percent of the settlers that live there today. The remaining 20 percent were meant to evacuate. In Jerusalem, the proposed border is based on Bill Clinton’s plan — Jewish neighborhoods to Israel, Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians.”
He quoted the Americans saying that while the Israeli government made no response to the American plan, and also failed to draw its own border outline, Abbas agreed to the US-suggested border outline.
US Secretary of State John Kerry, left, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet in Jerusalem, December 6, 2013 (photo credit: Matty Stern/US Embassy Tel Aviv)
The Americans said they had intended to begin the nine-month negotiating period with an Israeli announcement of a settlement freeze. But this proved impossible, an American official was quoted saying, “because of the current makeup of the Israeli government, so we gave up… We didn’t realize [that] continuing construction allowed ministers in [Netanyahu's] government to very effectively sabotage the success of the talks. There are a lot of reasons for the peace effort’s failure, but people in Israel shouldn’t ignore the bitter truth: the primary sabotage came from the settlements. The Palestinians don’t believe that Israel really intends to let them found a state when, at the same time, it is building settlements on the territory meant for that state. We’re talking about the announcement of 14,000 housing units, no less. Only now, after talks blew up, did we learn that this is also about expropriating land on a large scale. That does not reconcile with the agreement.
“At this point, it’s very hard to see how the negotiations could be renewed, let alone lead to an agreement,” the Americans continued. “Towards the end, Abbas demanded a three-month freeze on settlement construction. His working assumption was that if an accord is reached, Israel could build along the new border as it pleases. But the Israelis said no.”
Jonathan Pollard (photo credit: YouTube screenshot)
The Americans told Barnea that, in contrast to the hitherto unclear reports of whether the US was prepared to release American-Israeli spy Pollard to salvage the talks from collapse in recent weeks, Obama was willing “to prepare for Jonathan Pollard’s release. Such a move wouldn’t have helped his popularity in the American security system… There was a massive effort on our part to pull the wagon out of the deep quicksand it was stuck in. But the reality here hit us hard. Neither side had a sense of urgency. Kerry was the only one who felt a sense of urgency, and that was not enough.”
One bitter American official told Barnea, “I guess we need another intifada to create the circumstances that would allow progress.”
A third intifada, the Americans made clear, “would be a tragedy. The Jewish people are supposed to be smart; it is true that they’re also considered a stubborn nation. You’re supposed to know how to read the map: In the 21st century, the world will not keep tolerating the Israeli occupation. The occupation threatens Israel’s status in the world and threatens Israel as a Jewish state.”
Pressed by Barnea on perceived international hypocrisy over Israel’s presence in the West Bank, when the world “closes its eyes to China’s takeover of Tibet, it stutters at what Russia’s doing to Ukraine,” the Americans were quoted as responding: ”Israel is not China. It was founded by a UN resolution. Its prosperity depends on the way it is viewed by the international community.”
The American officials described to Barnea what they called Abbas’s loss of trust in the talks and in Netanyahu, and how his skepticism hardened as settlement-building continued, and as Israel demanded complete security control over the territories. From Abbas’s point of view, the Americans told Barnea, the sense was “that nothing was going to change on the security front. Israel was not willing to agree to time frames; its control of the West Bank would continue forever. Abbas reached the conclusion that there was nothing for him in such an agreement. He’s 79 years old. He has reached the last chapter of his life. He’s tired. He was willing to give the process one final chance, but found, according to him, that he has no partner on the Israeli side. His legacy won’t include a peace agreement with Israel.
John Kerry, left, with Mahmoud Abbas in Paris on February 19 2014. (photo credit: US State Department)
“In February, Abbas arrived at a Paris hotel for a meeting with Kerry. He had a lingering serious cold. ‘I’m under a lot of pressure,’ he complained. ‘I’m sick of this.’ He rejected all of Kerry’s ideas. A month later, in March, he was invited to the White House. Obama presented the American-formulated principles verbally — not in writing. Abbas refused.”
Abbas, the officials told Barnea, had made concessions — in accepting that “Palestine” would be demilitarized; in agreeing to the US border outline that would see 80% of settlers coming under Israeli sovereignty, and in agreeing for Israel to retain control of sensitive security areas such as the Jordan Valley for five years.
“He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness,” the Americans said. “‘Israel won’t be flooded with refugees,’ he promised.”
In a rare attribution of some blame to Abbas, the Americans said they “couldn’t understand why it bothered him so much” to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. But here too, ultimately, the Americans were empathetic to Abbas: “The Palestinians came to the conclusion that Israel was pulling a nasty trick on them. They suspected there was an effort to get from them approval of the Zionist narrative.”
Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel (C) at a press conference promoting new housing units to be built in the Jewish settlement of Tel Tzion, near Jerusalem, on August 13, 2013 (photo credit: Flash90)
The final straw for Abbas was the late March announcement by Uri Ariel’s Housing and Construction Ministry of building tenders for more than 700 housing units in Jerusalem’s Gilo neighborhood. At that point, the Americans told Barnea, Abbas “lost interest. He turned to the reconciliation talks with Hamas and to the question of who would inherit his mantle.”
The Americans warned that, with the talks over, Israel might be facing “quite a problem. As of now, nothing is stopping the Palestinians from turning to the international community. The Palestinians are tired of the status quo. They will get their state in the end — whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.”
They also warned that if, as announced, Israel seeks “to impose economic sanctions on the Palestinians, it could boomerang. The West Bank economy will collapse, and then Abbas will say ‘I don’t want this anymore. Take this from me.’ There’s great potential for deterioration here, which could end with the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority. Israeli soldiers will have to administer the lives of 2.5 million Palestinians, to their mothers’ chagrin. The donating countries will stop paying up, and the bill of $3 billion a year will have to be paid by your Finance Ministry.”
Some of the warnings delivered by the Americans reflected a similar tone to that expressed by Obama in an interview he gave shortly before his last meeting with Netanyahu at the White House in March.
Israel can expect to face international isolation and possible sanctions from countries and companies across the world if Netanyahu fails to endorse a framework agreement with the Palestinians, Obama cautioned in an interview with Bloomberg at the time. If Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach,” Obama said then. “There comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices,” he said.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during the weekly cabinet meeting on February 16, 2014 (photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem/POOL/Flash90)
The president went on to condemn Israel’s settlement activities in the West Bank, and said that though his allegiance to the Jewish state was permanent, building settlements across the Green Line was counterproductive and would make it extremely difficult for the US to defend Israel from painful repercussions in the international community. “If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction — and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time — if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited,” Obama warned.

Nigeria: Jihadists screaming “Allahu akbar” stormed church, started shooting everyone

Nigeria: Jihad, Ethnic Cleansing, Boko Haram

00 Comments

We can expect that Obama will write a strongly worded hashtag or something more serious — like  a whole tweet. Those savages will be quaking in their Boko birkenstocks.
While Islamic supremacists, Islamic apologists and leftist lapdogs spin insulting and ridiculous narratives about how the devout Muslim group Boko Haram has nothing to do with Islam, Boko Haram wages jihad in the cause of Islam while shouting  chanting “Allah Hu Akbar,” or allah is greater (than your god).
“Nigeria: Jihadists screaming “Allahu akbar” stormed church, started shooting everyone,”  (thanks to Robert Spencer)
While world leaders and mainstream media commentators continue to insist that Boko Haram, the Congregation of the People of the Sunnah for Dawah and Jihad, have nothing to do with Islam, the only people not to have gotten the memo are the members of Boko Haram itself.
“Massacre survivor describes Nigerian terrorists,” CNN, May 10, 2014:

HOUSTON (CNN) – We’re learning more about the brutal tactics of the Boko Haram terrorist group that abducted 276 schoolgirls in Nigeria on April 14.
A lone survivor from a 2012 shooting massacre carried out by Boko Haram gunmen at a Nigerian church talks about the event.
The scars on his face reveal just a fraction of his pain. And his soft-spoken words cannot hide the urgency of his message.
“Just like al-Qaida, they are very, very destructive,” said Ikenna Nzeribe.
Nzeribe has a warning about the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram and their leader Abubpakar Shekau.
“Everything he says he will do, he does them,” Nzeribe said.
In 2012, Nzeribe was a handsome, ambitious banker, and part of the Christian minority in the northeastern Nigeria town of Mubi. Then masked Boko Haram gunman stormed his church chanting “Allah Hu Akbar” or god is great.
“They started shooting everybody, everybody on sight. They shot everybody in the head,” he said.
When it was over, there were 13 dead. Shot in the face. Nzeribe was the only one to survive.
“I knew it was over for me. And the only thing I could do was say a last prayer, which was ‘Blood of Jesus, cover me,’ and that was it for me,” he said….

Outsourcing Terror: The Real Purpose of Mission Benghazi

As the story behind, and before the events of September 11, 2012 unfold, Conservative Report is able to offer more clarity into a confusing and uncontrolled situation on the ground in Benghazi. As events escalated in the Middle East in 2011, it became clear to the world that a unique opportunity presented itself to unseat a brutal dictator, who was actively supporting world terror.

As NATO was actively assisting rebels in Libya, bent on overthrowing then dictator Moammar Qadaffi, Barack Obama’s administration was attempting to play a limited, back-seat-role, presumably shying away from an entanglement similar to either Iraq or Afghanistan. Previous to, and concurrent with NATO’s direct involvement with Libyan rebel groups, coalescing under provisional control of Prime Minister Mahmoud Jabril of the Libyan transitional council (TNC), the United States was partnering with Qatar, and actively arming rebel groups (as they had in the past), and the United Arab Emirates had joined in, at a later date.

Arms were flowing into Libya.

Again, simultaneous to this, international arms dealers were licking their chops at the profits to be reaped from an unstable Middle East, and the civil war being waged in Libya in particular.

Marc Turi is an infamous American arms trader who maintained residence in both Arizona and Abu Dhabi, was supplying arms to Qatar that were presumably being shipped to Libya. Initially, these arms were both French and Russian, because Turi’s initial application for permission to ship US made arms had been denied by American officials.

It is of interest that, prior to this application, Marc Turi was in email communication with special envoy to the Libyan rebel alliance, J. Christopher Stevens, who agreed to speak to his superiors about Turi’s plan to arm the rebels. This is none other than the Chris Stevens who later became the Libyan ambassador, and was subsequently killed in the raid on the CIA facility in Benghazi.

The Obama administration was being contacted by the Qataris to arm Libyan rebels, and this presented two disparate problems for the President:

On the hand, he was deeply worried about the political ramifications of another military entanglement (with the potential of loss and loss of life) in the upcoming election year. He was worried that failure to assume any role in this would weaken him in the part of the world where he saw a future as world leader.

Secondly, Qatar was a long time ally of the United States, a wealthy and moderate Muslim nation, and a major supplier of natural gas worldwide.

Not only that, but possibly more significant, Qatar fell on the right side of the internecine battle for natural gas involving Turkey, whose Prime Minister is arguably Barack Obama’s closest and possibly only international friend.

See previous Conservative Report Online article, “EXCLUSIVE! Benghazi GUN-RUNNING & The Russia, China, Iran, Syria PIPELINE”

The solution for the Obama Administration was to arm Syrian rebels through our allies Qatar & the UAE,  assuring that no US fingerprints were “left on the murder weapon”, so to speak.  An agreement was forged where US money would be used to purchase foreign manufactured arms and ship them to Libya.

Two flies landed in the US ointment.

First, like any operation where a foreign entity is in charge, you lose control of the operation. As this gun-running was occurring, we had a limited number of CIA posted special forces on the ground in Libya, whose main task was to organize and assist the Libyan rebels. It became clear to them that the arms being shipped for the US by the Qataris were being delivered into the hands of anti-democratic, radical Islamist with strong ties to Al Qaeda. Reports were flying back to DC, apparently only to fall on deaf ears in the administration and presumably by the President.

The second fly was larger.  After being refused his initial request for permission to send US arms to the Libyan rebels in MArch 2011, Marc Turi reapplied in May of 2012 and requested permission to sell US arms to Qatar. This request was approved.

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, US arms were flowing through Qatar, into Libya and presumably winding-up in the hands of Al Qaeda aligned rebel groups.

It is of no little interest that a scant two months later, Marc Turi’s home in Arizona was raided by agents of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Turi stated that he believed that this raid, and the ongoing investigation into his arms dealing, is in direct response to his legal supply of US weapons to Qatar, and the fact that the Qataris “handed them out like candy”, with little concern about what factions received them.

Conservative Report has reported that the Benghazi CIA mission was tasked with collecting arms from forces supporting the Qaddafi regime. The CIA was tasked to track, and destroy them. We also reported that, in fact, those weapons were seized. Videos were made to prove to NATO that the US had destroyed them, yet we only destroyed the “non-functional arms” or those rendered inoperable.

The operable arms were shipped through Turkey to arm Syrian rebels, many of whom are reported to be at least sympathetic to Al Qaeda. What is important to note, is that the US was also disarming the very Al Qaeda rebels that we armed through Qatar.

This action angered the Al Qaeda rebel group, Ansar al-Shariah, who ultimately attacked the Benghazi facility. Informed sources are telling Conservative Report that a significant part of the 2012 Benghazi mission was to seize US manufactured weapons from Al Qaeda rebels (Ansar al Sharia), in order to cover-up the fact that they had been shipped.

 

HILLARY REFUSED TO PUT BOKO HARAM ON TERRORIST LIST FOR SHE IS A MUSLIM State Department Dismissed Boko Haram Concerns In 2012

State Department Dismissed Boko Haram Concerns In 2012

---

Print article Send a Tip

by Kerry Picket 11 May 2014, 1:08 PM PDT post a comment

Pressed by dozens of lawmakers from both parties in 2012 to put greater focus on growing violence by Boko Haram, the Islamist militant group that recently kidnapped 200 teenage girls in Nigeria, the State Department sent something akin to a form letter in reply.

The Oct. 12, 2012 letter from the State Department to the congressional officials downplayed the religious motivations of the group's violence. "Similar to the United States, Nigeria’s religious diversity is a source of strength, with communities working across religious lines to protect one another," the letter, obtained by Breitbart News, said.
The State Department's 2012 response to congressional pressure has emerged as a controversy after the kidnapping incident, which raised the profile of the loosely-banded, violent group. The response occurred during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.
After years of resisting, the State Department designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in November 2013.
Republican lawmakers and aides said that their private conversations with State Department officials were even more dismissive than the letter itself. H.R. 5822, The Boko Haram terrorist designation act, was legislation introduced by House members on May 17, 2012 but the bill died in Committee seven days later. A similar bill in the upper chamber met the same fate in Committee on the same day. 
“[State Department officials] would say, ‘What you’re doing is counter-productive here. It’s hurting our relationship with the Nigerian government. What you’re saying is not true,’” recalled a GOP aide who participated in the meetings.
The staffer continued, “’Boko Haram, right now,’ they were saying, ‘doesn’t have a clear enough hierarchy within the organization to have it be listed as an FTO[Foreign Terrorist Organization]. Their attacks weren’t wide-spread enough.’ The other argument that they gave was, ‘Oh these attacks aren’t really religiously motivated.’”
Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks slammed Clinton for her response at the time to his calls that State declare Boko Haram an FTO.
"Hillary Clinton’s State Department was excruciatingly slow to respond to any congressional calls for Boko Haram to be placed on the FTO list.  In fact, Secretary Clinton was counterproductive to any initiative to place Boko Haram on this list and actively worked against our efforts within the U.S. Congress to combat the religiously-motivated violence perpetuated by Boko Haram,” Franks said.
The State Department letter came in response to a letter from 28 representatives of both parties.
The July 26, 2012 letter to Clinton, which was signed by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA), Franks, and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), along with 24 other House members.
“We acknowledge that the goals of Boko Haram are wide-raning and its seemingly loose and decentralized structure can make it difficult to discern specific, organization-wide goals. But we must also acknowledge that there are those within Boko Haram who seek to create an Islamic state in Nigeria,” the letter said.
Over two months later, David S. Adams, the State Department's assistant secretary for legislative affairs, responded with the letter insisting religion was not the true root of violence in Nigeria.
“The religious tension, while real, should not be mistaken  as the primary source of violence in Nigeria,” Adams wrote.
Facing new scrutiny for the 2012 delays in ratcheting up pressure on the group, Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs recently defended State’s decision to not name Boko Haram a terrorist organization last Wednesday in a phone call with reporters, The Daily Beast reported.
“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.The letter to lawmakers does not include anything along those lines.
State Department spokesman Jen Psaki defended the Department’s actions under Clinton telling reporters on Wednesday:

Well, let me first say we designated three Boko Haram leaders, related individuals, back in June of 2012, so under Secretary Clinton. Designating groups or leaders is one key tool in our toolbox, but it’s not the only one. And I would point you to President Obama’s speech he gave almost exactly a year ago where he talked about the need for a holistic approach to countering terrorism. That’s what we’re pursuing, what we’ve been pursuing with the Nigerians and international partners. We’ve been working to counter Boko Haram for many, many years. And designating is one tool, but certainly, we’ve been long – we have long been working on this effort before the designation last November.

Congress Takes Steps That Could Lead To President Obama’s Impeachm

Congress Takes Steps That Could Lead To President Obama’s Impeachment

Photo: spirit of america / Shutterstock.com

Advertisement

While many Americans have called for the president’s impeachment, some members of Congress are beginning the processes that would hold President Obama accountable for his lawless actions.

“The STOP Act,” sponsored by Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC) claims Obama should be brought to court for his defiance against the Constitution. The congressman stated the purpose of initiating the legal proceedings was to “bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch.”

The most recent and notable Constitutional defiance included a range of offenses regarding the Affordable Care Act. The president has changed the language of the law as well as, processes of implementation without the consent of Congress.

RELATED: Will Obama Force Congress To Let Him Run For Illegal 3rd Term?

Rice wrote, “President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President.  However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents.”

So far, Rice’s movement to begin legal proceedings has garnered support from 29 members of Congress.

Here is a list of those supporting the STOP Act: Bachmann (MN), Bridenstine (OK), Chaffetz (UT), J. Duncan (SC), DeSantis (FL), Franks (AZ), Gowdy (SC), Harris (MD), Lamborn (CO), LaMalfa (CA), Marino (PA), McClintock (CA), Meadows (NC), Nunnelee (MS), Pittenger (NC), Posey (FL), Tom Price (GA), Ribble (WI), Salmon (AZ), Sanford (SC), Schweikert (AZ), Stewart (UT), Stockman (TX), Walberg (MI), Weber (TX), Wenstrup (OH), Williams (TX), Joe Wilson (SC), and Yoho (FL).

Do you stand with these conservatives? Tell us in the comments below!

House Oversight Committee Subpoenas John Kerry Over Benghazi Smoking Gun Emails

May 2, 2014 By Matthew Burke

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced Friday that it has issued a subpoena for Secretary of State John Kerry to testify at a hearing on May 21.

No doubt Kerry will be asked why Benghazi emails obtained by government watchdog group Judicial Watch  were not turned over to Congress by Kerry’s State Department when requested. Rather, it took a lawsuit by Judicial Watch to obtain them from the Obama regime.

<>< JESUS EXPLAINS WHY THEY KILLED HIM ><>

<>< JESUS EXPLAINS WHY THEY KILLED HIM ><>
Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.

And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty.

And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty.

And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out.

13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.

But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.

So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?

He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
LUKE 20:9-18