BREAKING NEWS: Obama Gets a Push Back From Congress over his Drive to Create “Palestine”

On November 29th the US House of Representatives H.Con.Res.165 in a bid to stop Obama from using his waning days as President to force a “Palestinian” state on Israel. The resolution which is heading to the Senate states the following:

“Expressing the sense of Congress and reaffirming longstanding United States policy in support of a direct bilaterally negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and opposition to United Nations Security Council resolutions imposing a solution to the conflict.”  

The resolution stands in direct opposition to the path that Obama appears to be moving towards as his Presidency comes to a close.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida speaking on the House floor regarding this resolution said the following:

“I wish that this resolution was not needed, but sadly, we know better.  The fact that we need to bring this up for debate and pass a resolution urging a United States administration to uphold long-standing U.S. policy as it relates to the peace process is telling and also disappointing … These next two months are going to be crucial for our friend and ally, the democratic and Jewish state of Israel … Israel is facing a constant barrage by Palestinians and their supporters at the United Nations …

Sadly, it has become clear over the past year that this administration may be looking to take unprecedented action — and in fact, we’ve heard that the administration has been seeking ways in which it could force the Israelis into making dangerous concessions … I have asked … nearly every administration official who has come before our Foreign Affairs Committee headed by Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel if President Obama will uphold long-standing U.S. policy and will veto any Security Council resolution related to Israel, and each one has evaded the question, refusing to reaffirm this long-standing, unambiguous, non-controversial policy.

 Any short-term achievement that an imposed solution will bring will be far outweighed by the long-term damage it will cause … Any action … aimed at forcing unilateral solutions … will be detrimental to the prospects of peace, and it would harm both Israelis and the Palestinians … true peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians can only come by direct, bilateral negotiations between them.”

 

Next move is Obama’s.

Info Provided by: Reflections of Indwelling Light

[huge_it_share]

lev-haolam-international-pressure

When it Comes to Amona, What is Bibi Netanyahu Afraid Of?

Amona, a small community of approximately 40 families near the community of Ofra north of Jerusalem is set to be demolished by order of Israel’s activist and ultra left leaning Supreme Court. The technical reason for this, is the community rests on “Palestinian” private property. While it’s true a small portion of the community rests on “Palestinian” land, most of the community does not. The Palestinian who with the help of Peace Now brought the complaint directly to the Supreme Court,  has had nothing to do with the property as his family abandoned it more than a generation ago. In fact, the property was of no interest to the Arab until Peace Now who is funded by the EU unearthed this fact in a document.

Although Amona is slated for destruction on December 25th, there is a law that has been tabled in the Knesset entitled the Regulation Law or Normalization Law. The purpose of this law is to retroactively legalize any Jewish community that the State of Israel knowingly provided support in order to grow even if the community is built on Arab private land.  The absentee land owner in each case would be fully compensated.  In most societies these laws are standard. So why is Bibi Netanyahu so afraid of passing this law?

One word: Obama.

The passage of this law  prevents the precedent that the destruction of Amona brings, which is to destroy the communities of Judea and Samaria through judicial fiat.  The Regulation Law also inadvertently applies Israeli sovereignty to large areas of Judea and Samaria.  True it won’t be called this, but everyone knows that’s what it is. Bibi has already been informed by the US government and EU that there will be severe punitive measures at the Hague with the passage of this law.  Expect Obama to use the passage of the law to abstain from a UNSC vote recognizing the final borders of “Palestine.” These threats are well known and with 50 days to go Bii is just trying to hold out for a new far more amicable President Trump.

In a perfect world Bibi would get his way. The law would be pushed off until after Jan. 20th, but Amona’s destruction sets a precedent that his party the Likud and Jewish Home have vowed not to let happen.  If Amona falls the collapse of the government is almost certain.  December 25th is the date to watch, but with the 1st reading of the Regulation Law already finished with its passing (there are two more readings necessary), the trigger for international measures against the only Jewish state may begin by Hanukkah.

[huge_it_share]

Break the BDS

The UN Votes to Disconnect Jerusalem from the Jewish People…Again

Today the UN voted to disconnect the Jewish people from their ancient capital and hand it to a people that never existed.  This was not the whim of a thin majority of countries, but rather a vast overhwhelming number of UN member states voted for the resolution. Out of the UN’s 193 member states, 147 voted in favor, seven voted against and eight abstained. Those who voted against were Canada, USA, Israel, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Naura and Palu.  Those who abstained were Australia, Guatemala, Panama, Papa New Guiea, Paraguay and Vanuatu.

The resolution states the following: “Any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to immediately cease all such illegal and unilateral measures.”  It then continues and pushes Israel to “respect for the historic status quo at the holy places of Jerusalem” and “urges all sides to work immediately and cooperatively to defuse tensions and halt all provocations, incitement and violence at the holy sites in the City.”

Daniel Luria, the Executive Director of Ateret Cohanim, an organization dedicated to returning property in Jerusalem stolen by Arabs back to Jewish hands dismissed the resolutions as anti-semitic. “Whoever doesn’t recognize such a clear, obvious and eternal connection and unbreakable bond between the Jewish people and Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the ‘Kotels’  (Northern, Southern, Western and Eastern Walls of Temple Mount) is blinded by hate, a denier of both current day realities (a plethora of archeological finds) and Jewish history, and is an anti-semitic, arrogant fool. Such a person or body is destined the dung-heap of history and will be shunned or forgotten in due course.”

The UN General Assemply decision comes on the back the UNESCO vote, which disregarded the Jewish narritive to the Land of Israel.  While the UN vote is non-binding it still gives added energy to a potential UN Security Council collision course before Obama leaves office. If it gets to the security council all bets are off.  After all, if it was Jimmy Carter Palestine would have been a reality a long time ago.

[huge_it_share]

 

The ADL’s new bedfellows

In an interview this week with the Australian media, Jordan’s King Abdullah became the latest Arab leader to express hope that President-elect Donald Trump and his team will lead the world’s to date failed fight against jihadist Islam.

Like his counterparts in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Abdullah effectively ruled out the possibility that President Barack Obama will take any constructive steps to defeat the forces of global jihad in his last months in power.

Speaking of the humanitarian disaster in Aleppo for instance, Abdullah said, “I don’t think there’s much we can do until the new administration is in place and a strategy is formulated.”

Egyptian President Abdel Fatah a-Sisi was among the first Arab leaders to welcome Trump’s victory. Sisi has been largely shunned by the Obama administration. President Barack Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood regime that Sisi and the Egyptian military overthrew in 2013.

Sisi was the first foreign leader to speak to Trump after his victory was announced. He released a statement to the media saying that he “looks forward to the presidency of President Donald Trump to inject a new spirit into the trajectory of Egyptian-American relations.”

The support that the incoming Trump administration is garnering in the Arab world stands in stark contrast to the near wall-to-wall opposition to Trump expressed by the American Muslim community. According to a survey of Muslim American opinion taken in October by the Council for American Islamic Relations, (CAIR), 72 percent of American Muslims supported Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Trump was supported by a mere 4 percent of the Muslim community.

Muslim American activists played key roles in the Clinton campaign. They were particularly active in swing states like Ohio and Michigan where Trump won by narrow margins.

As the Jerusalem Post reported Wednesday, since the election, Muslim American leaders have expressed concern and hostility towards the incoming Trump administration. Muslim Democrat activist James Zogby, who also heads the Arab American Institute published an op-ed in the Jordan Times to this effect after the election. Zogby expressed concern that the Trump administration would harm the civil rights of Arab Americans.

The gap between the Arab world’s support for Trump and the Muslim American community’s opposition to him is particularly notable because it reverberates strongly the growing cleavage between the Israeli government and public and large swathes of the American Jewish community.

Led most prominently by the Anti-Defamation League and its executive director Jonathan Greenblatt, in the wake of the election, American Jews are at the forefront of efforts to delegitimize Trump and his senior advisors. Unlike their Muslim American counterparts, who are keeping their criticism of Arab regimes to themselves, Greenblatt, the ADL and their allies on the Left have linked their opposition to Trump to legitimizing opponents of Israel.

Before assuming his role at the ADL, Greenblatt worked in Valerie Jarrett’s political influence shop in the Obama White House. As ADL chief, Greenblatt has used his position as the head of a major Jewish organization to support the Obama administration’s policies. To this end, since the election, the ADL has worked to tar the incoming Trump administration as anti-Semitic, focusing its fire on Trump’s senior strategist, former Breitbart News CEO Stephen Bannon.

The ADL spearheaded the campaign to label Bannon an anti-Semite. When its claims were shown to be entirely spurious, this week the ADL quietly acknowledged that Bannon has actually never made any anti-Semitic statements. But its quiet admission of spreading lies didn’t stop the ADL from continuing to traffic in them.

Even after it admitted that “We are not aware of any anti-Semitic statements from Bannon,” the ADL continued to insist that Breitbart has been a home for anti-Semites because some Jew haters wrote anti-Semitic responses to Breitbart articles.

The ADL’s smear campaign against Bannon is a hard sell because Breitbart is among the most pro-Israel websites in the US. But this brings us to the second aspect of the ADL-led campaign against President-elect Donald Trump and his team.

With each passing day, it becomes increasingly clear that the ADL and its allies are using the Trump victory as a means to draw a distinction between pro-Israel and Jew friendly while arguing that anti-Semites support Israel and that people who hate Israel are not anti-Semites. This was the clear goal at the ADL’s summit on anti-Semitism last week.

As Daniel Greenfield reported Thursday in Frontpage Magazine, ADL used the conference to legitimize the so-called BDS campaign to boycott Jewish Israeli products and divest from businesses that do business with Jewish owned Israeli businesses. It similarly normalized the general argument that there is nothing inherently anti-Semitic about opposing the Jewish state.

In a panel with the disturbing title, “Is Delegitimization of Israel Anti-Semitism?” the ADL featured anti-Israel activist Jill Jacobs and the Jane Eisen. Both women argued that BDS is legitimate. At the same time, they denounced fervent supporters of Israel like Bannon and Center for Security President Frank Gaffney.

Greenfield reported that the ADL gave a prominent platform at the conference supposedly dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism to Ford Foundation CEO Darren Walker. The Ford Foundation is one of the leading contributors to anti-Israel organizations in the US and to anti-Zionist political front groups in Israel.

Other speakers explained that it isn’t that Israel’s foes are anti-Semitic. It is just that Israelis and their supporters have become “hypersensitive” to criticism.

All in all, Greenfield concluded, “Instead of tackling anti-Semitism, the ADL was tackling Israel and pro-Israel Jews” and “normalizing anti-Israel rhetoric and organizations.”

A few days after the conference, the ADL took the next step towards normalizing hatred for Israel in America when it announced its support for Rep. Keith Ellison’s candidacy to serve as the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Ellison became the first Muslim American elected to the House of Representatives in 2006. In the decades that preceded his election, Ellison built a long and documented history of membership in and advocacy and employment for the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam. In his capacity as a Nation of Islam spokesman, Ellison made anti-Semitic statements and promoted anti-Jewish and anti-Israel positions and activists.

Since joining the House of Representatives, Ellison has been one of the leading anti-Israel voices in Congress. He has spearheaded multiple anti-Israel initiatives. He openly supports the boycott of Israeli Jewish products and has castigated Israel as an apartheid state.

Together with James Zogby, last August Ellison served as a member of the Democratic Party’s platform committee. The men attempted to purge the platform of language in support of Israel.

Yet Wednesday the ADL released a statement extolling Ellison as “a man of good character.” The ADL praised him as “an ally in the fight against anti-Semitism and for civil rights.”

It even said that Ellison “has been on record in support of Israel.”

ADL is supporting Ellison – and opposing Trump and his pro-Israel advisors – because Greenblatt and his backers support Obama’s policies in the Middle East and want to make it difficult for Trump to abandon them.

Ellison and the leading American Muslim groups oppose Trump for the same reason. The difference between the two groups is that the ADL and its Jewish backers are acting in this manner because they support the Left, which Obama leads. Ellison and his allies at CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, and the Arab American Institute and other groups oppose Trump because they support the substance of Obama’s policies.

The chief characteristics of Obama’s Middle East policies have been support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran against Israel and the US’s Sunni allies.

Former FBI agent and counterterrorism expert John Guandolo estimates that upwards of 80 percent of Islamic centers and mosques in the US are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The major American Muslim groups, including CAIR, ISNA and the Islamic Circle of North America are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood in turn supports Iran.

During his year in power in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi permitted Iranian warships to travel through the Suez Canal, hosted Iranian leaders and Hezbollah commanders in Cairo and took a series of additional steps to embrace Iran.

Trump’s foreign policy advisor Walid Phares gave an interview to Egyptian television after Trump’s election stating that Trump will support a bill introduced by Senator Ted Cruz to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood in the US as well as its offshoots CAIR, ISNA and others due to their support for jihadist terror groups formed by Brotherhood members. Al Qaeda, Hamas and a host of other jihadist groups have all been formed by Muslim Brotherhood followers.

Trump’s National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, Rep. Mike Pompeo, whom Trump has selected to serve as his CIA Director as well as Marine Gen. James Mattis, the leading contender to serve as Trump’s Defense Secretary are all outspoken opponents of Obama’ nuclear deal with Iran.

Given the stakes then, it makes perfect sense that the Arab American groups oppose Trump.

It also makes sense that Arab regimes threatened by the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran support Trump and eagerly await his inauguration.

And it clearly makes sense for Israel to welcome Trump’s election.

The only thing that makes no sense is the American Jewish campaign to demonize Trump. The ADL’s leadership of the campaign to smear Trump and his advisors while legitimizing BDS and supporting Israel bashers is antithetical to the interests of the American Jewish community.

In adopting these positions, Greenblatt and the ADL along with their allies in J Street, Jewish Voices for Peace, If Not Now, the Forward, other far left groups and mainstream groups that have lost their way show through their actions that they have conflated their Judaism with their support for the Left. To the extent that the interests of the Jews of America contradict the positions of the Left, the Jews of America are behaving in an “anti-Semitic” way.

It is the responsibility of the segment of the community that understands “Jewish” is not a synonym of “leftist” to oppose the ADL and its backers. If they fail to do so, they will contribute to the descent of the community into powerlessness and irrelevance, not only in the era of Trump, but into the future.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

[huge_it_share]

Nigeria’s Radical Islamic President is Suppressing Biafran Zionists and Pro-Secessionists

At the end of the Biafran War many experts came to the conclusion that genocide had been committed against the Igbo by the Nigerian government. In an effort to suppress the scandal, the Nigerian government with some help from Great Britain worked frantically to cover up the news about the atrocities. For almost fifty years that effort paid off. The crime of Biafran Genocide was carefully hidden away from the public.
 
However, today 2016 the agitation for the restoration of the defunct Biafran state is in the news again. This is coming nearly half a century after the country’s demise in 1970. After suffering a pogrom in which more than 100,000 of their people were killed by Nigerian civilians and various security forces of the Nigerian government, Igbo people with other southeasterners who also were affected in the killings declared an independent Biafran state in mid-1967. Immediately following the secession the Nigerian state levied a genocidal war of aggression that lasted two and half years against Biafra. With the help of Great Britain, USSR (Russia) and Islamic Arab states; all those countries supplied arms to Nigeria and the war resulted in the genocide of Igbo people.
 
The war was prosecuted with the declared intention of wiping out the Igbo from the face of the Earth. By the time the war was over a quarter of Igbo population, that is 3 million of them were further exterminated. About 2 million of the casualties died from starvation resulting from the Nigerian government official policy of “hunger as a legitimate weapon of war.” Almost fifty years after that horrific genocide which tends to have been largely forgotten by much of the world community, a new generation of Igbo people who are majorly Animists and Christians are reviving the call to free themselves and territory from the largely Islamic state of Nigeria.
 
A close look at most of the people who are championing the new struggle to separate Biafra from Nigeria reveals that they either did not witness the Biafran War or they were mere children during the war. For this reason some people have asked the question; why are people in this age bracket bent on defiantly reviving such a horrific episode and experience in their history half a century on. Some people have argued that it has something to do with the fact that the Nigerian government banned the teaching of history in Nigerian schools soon after the Biafran War. People were prohibited from mentioning the name, “Biafra” for many decades afterwards. The government wanted to hide the genocide permanently from public consciousness. As a result, subsequent generations which did not witness the war are unable to appreciate fully the devastating impacts of the war on their parents’ generation. But since the years following the war even the generations of Igbo people who did not witness it are being punished and marginalized by the Nigerian state. And this is part of what is fueling the independence protests.
 
Remembering how horrible the war was, people like the current Muslim President of Nigeria Muhammadu Buhari who incidentally fought on the Nigerian side to defeat Biafra have asked the new agitators for a revived independent state of Biafra to forget it. Of course he did not find it necessary to express any remorse about the Igbo Genocide which he helped to orchestrate. He instead believes that the people will just forget just because he asked them to forget the heinous crime that was committed against them. Insensitively, the president went on to argue that the agitators are doing this because they did not experience or witness the war. This has made many observers to interpret Buhari’s highhanded response by killing the peaceful nonviolent agitators as his way of trying to teach the “inexperienced” agitators a lesson. In the past one and half years Buhari has rolled out, on many occasions, the full strength of his country’s military force to violently suppress the peaceful nonviolent Biafran independence movement.
 
The human rights organization; Amnesty International reports that since the advent of Buhari administration in 2015 till now – the tail end of 2016, Nigerian government has killed more than 300 Biafrans and wounded many more while they held peaceful protests for Biafra’s independence. Amnesty International says that many of those pro-Biafra protesters were shot and killed in their sleep and others while they gathered in churches to pray. Many of the protesters were shot and killed from behind while they tried to escape.
 
The fact is that the peaceful protests for the separation of Igbo territory (Biafra) from Nigeria has been going on since the year 2000. The group known as Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) had spearheaded these protests. Various Nigerian administrations before the advent of the present one in 2015 had used mostly the incarceration of the leaders of the movement in trying to deal with and suppress it. MASSOB’s former leader Ralph Uwazurike suffered many jail times in Nigerian prisons. Sometimes the MASSOB leader was detained for many years at a time. Apart from many of the agitators who are being killed extra-judicially by government forces there are some notable individuals who are being held in various Nigerian prisons just because they are agitating for Biafra’s independence. Some were snatched off the streets into prisons for merely wearing vests with Biafran insignia or just being in possession of Biafran flags. There are such people like Benjamin Onwuka the leader of Biafra Zionist Movement (BZM,) Chidiebere Onwudiwe whose home was invaded by Nigerian security agents in the middle of the night. He was taken away from his house at 2 AM and has not been heard from again since the last one year. Then there is Nnamudi Kanu who runs an online radio called Radio Biafra London (RBL.) These individuals except for Onwudiwe whose fate is yet to be known, can be described as almost lucky because Buhari’s government has not yet executed them and their cases have been celebrated because of the relatively wide media publicity they have attracted.
 
But there are many unsung pro-Biafra agitator-victims who are not as lucky. They are currently suffering various kinds of persecutions in many detention centers around the world. Some of these less known victims are being prosecuted in different courts of law in many places around the world simply because they demonstrated publicly for the independence of Biafra. These people are being deprived of their freedom or are being subjected to other forms of hardships and inhumane treatments because of their involvement in Biafran freedom activism.
 
Over the years many critics have complained that the Nigerian government has used some unorthodox diplomatic manipulations to influence how some foreign government agencies carry out their duties in its effort to suppress Biafra’s independence and hide the Biafran Genocide. Since the time of Biafra War till now, Nigeria has deployed its diplomatic tentacles across the world to make sure that those who agitate for Biafra anywhere are suppressed. We will cite two little known examples of those who are going through persecutions in so-called civilized societies like European countries of Norway and England.
 
Lotachukwu Okorie used to serve as MASSOB’s District Officer in southeast Nigeria before he emigrated to Norway, fleeing from persecution by Nigerian government authorities. On getting to Norway, a civilized society, he believed that his problems were over and his human rights would be protected. Unfortunately, he discovered that they had only just begun. In what looked like a remotely influenced operation the Norwegian government detained Okorie and charged him with illegal immigration crime. He was then detained for one year and six months without any conclusive decision on his case. According to Norwegian laws he overstayed in jail the period he was legally supposed to. Just before he was arrested, Okorie was so frustrated by the various dehumanizing treatments he was receiving from Norwegian security agents that he was driven to attempt suicide with a kitchen knife.
 
Another case which is fast becoming a source of embarrassment to the British government is that of Yahgozie Immanu-el victim of political persecution by British authorities that apparently are trying hard to please Nigerian government which it is believed are tele-guiding and influencing the current ordeals of Yahgozie. It appears that the British government is willing to compromise their country’s very reputable centuries-old national respect for the fundamental human and civil rights of all people simply to please the Nigerian government. Yahgozie is an independent journalist as well as a pro-Biafra activist who is based in London. He got arrested by the British police while he covered the recent official visit to Britain by the Nigerian President Buhari. He was subsequently taken to court on frivolous and trumped up charges that he was trying to attack President Buhari’s motorcade. Some eyewitnesses of the incident are still unable to understand how the actions of someone who only had a microphone and was trying to cover the unfolding events could have been interpreted as an intention to attack President Buhari. Yahgozie’s case comes up again in the City of London Magistrates Court later in this month of November. Many people think that the case is actually turning into an embarrassment to the human rights image of the British government.  
[huge_it_share]