Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 22:57:07 +0000

Subject: Obama Used His Final UN Address To Promote A ‘Liberal World

Order’ And A Palestinian State

From: End Of The American Dream <noreply+feedproxy@google.com>

 

Obama Used His Final UN Address To Promote A ‘Liberal World Order’ And A

Palestinian State

 

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/obama-used-his-final-un-address-to-promote-a-liberal-world-order-and-a-palestinian-state

 

Posted: 20 Sep 2016 09:01 PM PDT

 

Obama Used His Final UN Address To Promote A ‘Liberal World Order’ And A

Palestinian State

 

By Michael Snyder, on September 20th, 2016

 

During Barack Obama’s eighth and final address to the United Nations he

let his true colors show. He staunchly defended globalism, he took

several not very subtle shots at Donald Trump, and he boldly declared

that Israel "cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land".

That statement about "Palestinian land" was extremely alarming to many,

because there are indications that Obama may decide to support a UN

Security Council resolution that establishes the parameters for a

Palestinian state during his final months in the White House. Barack

Obama has promised to squeeze every ounce of "change" out of the

remainder of his term that he possibly can, and his last UN speech

showed what is on his heart at this moment.

 

According to the Washington Post, Obama’s final UN address represented

"an impassioned plea on behalf of a liberal world order"…

 

President Obama, in his final speech to the United Nations Tuesday, made

an impassioned plea on behalf of a liberal world order that he admitted

was under growing threat from wars in the Middle East and rising

nationalism at home and in Europe.

 

Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly for the eighth and last time as

president, Obama sought to rise above the conflicts of the moment and

outline a future of international cooperation, stressing the importance

of the global liberal institutions formed after World War II, including

the United Nations.

 

Barack Obama is a true believer in internationalism. He appears to be

completely convinced that the best path forward for humanity involves

more integration on all levels – political, economic and even spiritual.

Just check out this excerpt from his speech…

 

"I believe that at this moment we all face a choice," Obama said. "We

can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and

integration or we can retreat into a world sharply divided and

ultimately in conflict along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race

and religion. I want to suggest to you today that we must go forward and

not back."

 

Obama’s obsession with globalism is one of the reasons why he has so

much disdain for Donald Trump, and his speech at the United Nations

contained quite a few comments that seemed specifically targeted at him.

The following comes from CNN…

 

He painted a dark picture of the future awaiting Americans, and the

world, if the forces of "aggressive nationalism" or "crude populism" win

out. And he specifically inveighed against building a wall — a

centerpiece of Trump’s proposal on border security.

 

"A nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself," Obama declared to

the assembled representatives of the UN’s member states.

 

But even more alarming than his defense of globalism was his wording

about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I can’t remember any previous

president ever using the phrase "Palestinian land" before. Obviously a

"two-state solution" is already an inevitable outcome in Obama’s mind.

Here is the full quote for those that have not seen it yet…

 

"Surely Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians

reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel. But Israel

must recognize that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian

land."

 

To me, this statement is a major red flag.

 

Could it be possible that Barack Obama plans to stab Israel in the back

by supporting a UN Security Council resolution that permanently divides

the Holy Land before his time in the White House is done?

 

On Wednesday, Obama is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu. As you can see, White House Press Secretary Josh

Earnest says that a discussion about a "two-state solution" will be on

the agenda…

 

Obama plans to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on

Wednesday to "discuss the need for genuine advancement of a two-state

solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the face of deeply

troubling trends on the ground," according to White House Press

Secretary Josh Earnest.

 

Barack Obama knows that he only has until January 20th, 2017 to take any

action on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

If he supports a UN Security Council resolution formally recognizing a

Palestinian state and granting them East Jerusalem as their capital, the

next president would not be able to go back and undo that. So this may

be a way for Obama to "leave a legacy" in the Middle East, and he may

especially be tempted to do this if it looks like Donald Trump could win

the election…

 

A looming Donald Trump presidency would make it more likely for

lame-duck US President Barack Obama to support a United Nations Security

Council resolution laying down the basic parameters for the creation of

Palestinian state, a former top US official said Sunday.

 

"I suspect that if Trump wins, the president would be more inclined to

go for a Security Council resolution to try to do something that binds,

creates standards for the future that the next president couldn’t undo,"

Dennis Ross said at a conference on the future of Zionism and the

US-Israel relationship. "If Clinton wins, I suspect he [Obama] would be

more sensitive to her concerns as to whether this helps or hurt her."

 

Less than a week ago, I wrote an article about how UN Secretary-General

Ban Ki-moon also appears to want to see movement toward a Palestinian

state before his term ends, and he reaffirmed this position very

strongly on Tuesday…

 

Earlier on Tuesday, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon told the UN General

Assembly that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

would be a two-state solution, and that the one-state option would

"spell doom" for both sides.

 

"This is madness. Replacing a two-state solution with a one-state

construct would spell doom: denying Palestinians their freedom and

rightful future, and pushing Israel further from its vision of a Jewish

democracy towards greater global isolation," said Ban.

 

Of course Barack Obama and Ban Ki-moon are both dead wrong about this.

 

If the UN Security Council passes a resolution that sets the parameters

for a Palestinian state,  it would be one of the worst things that they

could possibly do, and it would set the stage for a major war in the

Middle East.

 

But the pressure is on, and the world community seems to sense a real

opportunity to divide the land of Israel. ...

 

Overall, I don’t know if I have ever seen such an international push for

a Palestinian state like we are seeing right now.

 

And the man that holds all the power is Barack Obama, because a

potential U.S. veto is all that stands in the way of a UN Security

Council resolution that divides the land of Israel and establishes a

Palestinian state.

 

At this moment we are in the danger zone. Obama has only four months

left to pull the trigger, and Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have both

stated that they do not plan to support such a resolution once they take

office.

 

So if something is going to happen, it is almost certainly going to be

before January 20th, 2017.

 

It is unclear what Obama is going to do at this point, but it is not

exactly comforting that the fate of the land of Israel lies in his hands.

 

*About the author:Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The

Economic Collapse Blog and End Of The American Dream. Michael’s

controversial new book about Bible prophecy entitled "The Rapture

Verdict" is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.*

 

 

Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:44:22 +0000

From: End Of The American Dream <noreply+feedproxy@google.com>

 

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/palestinian-authority-races-to-get-a-un-security-council-resolution-before-obama-leaves-office

 

Palestinian Authority Races To Get A UN Security Council Resolution

Before Obama Leaves Office

 

by Michael Snyder {a Christian Zionist}

 

Posted: 13 Sep 2016 06:47 PM PDT

 

A little more than four months from now Barack Obama’s time in the White

House is scheduled to end, and the Palestinians know that their best

chance of getting a UN Security Council resolution addressing their

conflict with Israel is rapidly slipping away. Donald Trump and Hillary

Clinton are both greatly wooing the Jewish vote, and they both are

making very strong pro-Israel statements these days. To many of you it

probably isn’t a surprise that the Palestinians are not exactly thrilled

with the prospect of a Trump presidency, but the truth is that they are

very leery of Clinton as well. If you doubt this, just check out

<http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/09/harder-times-palestine-clinton-wins-election-160912073343128.html>

this Al-Jazeera article. At this point the Palestinians are pretty much

convinced that any action at the UN Security Council must happen while

Barack Obama still holds the reigns of power, and so they are in a race

against time.

 

At a minimum, the Palestinians would like a UN Security Council

resolution condemning any new Jewish settlement activity in the West

Bank. And that is precisely what they are pushing very hard for

<right">http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Palestinians-speed-up-bid-for-UNSC-resolution-against-Israelis-settlements-466739>right

now…

 

The Palestinian Authority intends to accelerate its attempt to pass a

United Nations Security Council resolution against Israeli settlement

activity in the West Bank, according to WAFA, the Palestinian News and

Information Agency.

 

"The Palestinian leadership and in cooperation with the Arab League and

the Arab ministerial group will hold contacts at the international level

to speed up convening a Security Council session that should pass a

resolution to stop settlements, which pose unprecedented and serious

threat and creates a situation that would result in grave consequences,"

said Nabil Abu Rude, who is a spokesman for PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

 

Needless to say, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is

steadfastly against such a resolution, and he is alarmed by statements

made by Palestinian leaders that seem to indicate that they want to

remove

<every">http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/09/13/watch-netanyahu-is-right-removing-jews-to-create-palestinian-state-is-ethnic-cleansing/>every

single Jewish person from territories under their control…

 

The Israeli leader

<also">http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-says-there-will-be-no-israelis-in-palestine/>also

addressed the longstanding Palestinian Authority demand for a Jew-free

Palestinian state; a requirement famously expressed by PA President

Mahmoud Abbas when he exclaimed, "In a final resolution, we would not

see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands."

 

"I think what makes peace impossible is intolerance of others. Societies

that respect all people are the ones that pursue peace. Societies that

demand ethnic cleansing don’t pursue peace," Netanyahu stated in the video.

 

If we see a UN Security Council resolution on Israeli settlement in the

West Bank that would be significant, but there is another possibility

that would be absolutely earth-shattering if Barack Obama chose to go

that direction. Up until now, the U.S. government has always used their

UN Security Council veto power to block any resolution that would

formally establish the parameters for a Palestinian state and grant them

East Jerusalem as the capital of that state. But earlier this year the

Obama administration signaled that such a resolution

<http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/u-s-anger-at-israel-could-result-in-a-un-security-council-resolution-establishing-a-palestinian-state>

was now on the table, and at this point Obama has just four months left

to make a decision one way or the other.

 

If Obama decides to pull the trigger, such a resolution

<http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/09/10/obama-israel-palestine-parameters-resolution-the-last-chance/>

would be legally binding on the Israelis and the Palestinians, and

neither Trump nor Clinton would be able to go back and change it once it

is done…

 

This leaves only one option that isn’t seen as unrealistic, unpalatable,

or insignificant: to set down the guidelines or "parameters" of a peace

agreement—on the four core issues of borders, security, refugees, and

Jerusalem—in a US-supported UN Security Council resolution. Once passed,

with US support, these Security Council-endorsed parameters would become

international law, binding, in theory, on all future presidents and

peace brokers.

 

Top US officials see a parameters resolution as Obama’s only chance at a

lasting, positive legacy, one that history might even one day show to

have been more important to peace than the achievements of his predecessors.

 

Back in March, 388 members of Congress from both parties (including

Nancy Pelosi) sent Barack Obama a letter urging him not to support such

a resolution. So there is a considerable amount of political pressure on

him not to do this.

 

But at this point he is a lame duck with nothing to lose. He always said

that a Palestinian state was high on his list of priorities, and this is

his final chance to do something about it. [...]

 

We are going to find out what happens one way or the other very soon,

because January 20th, 2017 is just a little bit more than four months

away. [...]

 

 

http://www.france24.com/en/20160922-abbas-seeks-british-apology-1917-jewish-homeland-declaration-palestine-israel

 

Abbas seeks British apology for 1917 Jewish homeland declaration

 

Latest update : 2016-09-22

 

Britain should apologize for its 1917 declaration endorsing the founding

of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and should recognize Palestine as a

state, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told the United Nations

General Assembly on Thursday.

 

Abbas said that the Palestinian people had suffered greatly because of

the Balfour Declaration, in which Britain said it favoured the

establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine but

that this should not undermine the rights of others living there.

 

"We ask Great Britain, as we approach 100 years since this infamous

declaration, to draw the necessary lessons and to bear its historic,

legal, political, material and moral responsibility for the consequences

of this declaration, including an apology to the Palestinian people for

the catastrophes, misery and injustice this declaration created and to

act to rectify these disasters and remedy its consequences, including by

the recognition of the state of Palestine," Abbas said. "This is the

least Great Britain can do."

 

Abbas also called on the 193-member world body to exert greater effort

than at any time in the past to establish a truly independent

Palestinian state, as the 50th anniversary of Israel's "abhorrent"

occupation approaches in June 2017, asking the UN to declare 2017 "the

international year to end the Israeli occupation of our land and our

people".

 

Abbas said "our hand remains outstretched for making peace" but he

questioned whether any Israeli leader is ready to make "a true peace ...

that will abandon the mentality of hegemony, expansionism and colonization."

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking a short time later

at the annual gathering of world leaders, directly contradicted Abbas.

 

"This conflict has never been about the settlements or about

establishing a Palestinian state," said Netanyahu. "It's always been

about the existence of a Jewish state, a Jewish state in any boundary."

 

He also derided Abbas for focusing on the declaration and alluded to the

possibility of the Palestinians suing Britain for it.

 

"President Abbas just attacked from this podium the Balfour Declaration.

He is preparing a lawsuit against Britain for that declaration from

1917. That’s almost 100 years ago. Talk about being stuck in the past,"

Netanyahu said.

 

The mutual recriminations in Thursday’s speeches underlined the low

expectations for any revival of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. As it

happened, the only speech between the two Middle East neighbors was

given by the prime minister of Norway, where the secret

Israeli-Palestinian negotiations took place leading to the 1993 Oslo

accords.

 

Peace talks last collapsed in 2014 and there are few hopes for a

resumption anytime soon in part because of Israeli anger at Palestinian

attacks and Palestinian criticism of Israel’s construction of

settlements on occupied land where Palestinians want to establish a state.

 

The Balfour Declaration, named for the British foreign secretary at the

time, offered a more nuanced message than Abbas described in his speech.

 

"His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in

Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their

best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being

clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the

civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in

Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any

other country," it said.

 

The British mission to the United Nations had no immediate comment.

 

(FRANCE 24 with REUTERS)

 

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/201516

 

US Denies Reports it Threatened Israel

 

State Dept. says reports that Obama caused Netanyahu to fold on

Judea-Samaria construction with veto threat are 'false.'

 

By Nitsan Keidar

 

First Publish: 10/7/2015, 9:13 AM

 

The administration of US President Barack Obama has denied reports in

Israeli media Tuesday, according to which Obama threatened Prime

Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against lifting the unprecedented building

freeze in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

 

Channel 2 reported on Tuesday night that Netanyahu folded to pressure

from Obama, who threatened that if Israel approved new construction

following the wave of Arab terror attacks, the US would not veto a

looming UN Security Council resolution that would establish "Palestine"

and declare "settlements" in Judea-Samaria illegal.

 

During the daily press briefing of the US State Department on Tuesday

night, a journalist asked spokesperson Mark Toner about the Channel 2

report.

 

"I'm aware of reports such as these, and I can say that they are false,"

claimed Toner. "Our position on the issue of settlement is known to

Israel, and while we don't reveal private conversations, I want to nip

this story in the bud. No sort of ultimatum was issued."

 

Toner also praised Israel's actions in trying to calm tensions on the

Temple Mount - the holiest site in Judaism where Arab rioters have

repeatedly attacked police - and said the actions match America's desire

to return the status quo to the region. Netanyahu has repeatedly called

to maintain the status quo, by which the Jordanian Waqf that holds de

facto rule of the site bans Jewish prayer.

 

Despite Toner's claims, Judea and Samaria regional heads who met with

Netanyahu on Tuesday night say he refused their demands to renew

building, directly referencing international pressure.

 

The report of Obama's threat comes just a week after a report in

Politico that revealed Obama twice refused to veto a UN resolution

establishing a Palestinian state.

 

According to the report, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid

asked White House chief of staff Denis McDonough twice this year to have

Obama publicly announce he would veto a UN Security Council call

establishing "Palestine." On both occasions, Obama flatly ignored the

request.

 

Regarding Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria, the 2012 Levy

Report proved Israel's presence in the Biblical heartland of Judea and

Samaria is completely legal according to international law. Despite

being commissioned by Netanyahu, the coalition government has yet to

adopt the report.

 

 

Date created : 2016-09-22

Record Military Deal with Israel + Israel-Honduras links+Trump'soffices

in Israel+ Muslims and Clinton

 

From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics and Engineering Physics)

[mailto:sadanand@ccsu.edu]

Sent: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:54:22 +0000

 

Record New US Military Aid Deal for Israel to Be Signed in Days

 

By Matt Spetalnick and Luke Baker, Reuters, 13 September 2016

 

The United States and Israel have reached final agreement on a record

new package of at least $38 billion in U.S. military aid and the 10-year

pact is expected to be signed within days, sources close to the matter

told Reuters on Tuesday.

 

The deal will represent the biggest pledge of U.S. military assistance

ever made to any country but also includes major concessions granted by

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to officials on

both sides.

 

Those include Israel's agreement not to seek additional funds from

Congress beyond what will be guaranteed annually in the new package, and

also to phase out a special arrangement that has allowed Israel to spend

part of its U.S. aid on its own defense industry instead of on

American-made weapons, the officials said.Drawn-out aid negotiations

have underscored continuing friction between U.S. President Barack Obama

and Netanyahu over last year's U.S.-led nuclear deal with Iran, Israel's

arch-foe. The United States and Israel have also been at odds over the

Palestinians.

 

But the right-wing Israeli leader decided it would be best to forge a

new arrangement with Obama, who leaves office in January, rather than

hoping for better terms from the next U.S. administration, according to

officials on both sides.

 

A deal now allows him to avoid uncertainties surrounding the next

president, whether Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump,

and to give Israel's defense establishment the ability to plan ahead.

Obama's aides want a new deal before his presidency ends, seeing it as

an important part of his legacy. Republican critics accuse him of not

being attentive enough to Israel's security, which the White House

strongly denies.

 

MISSILE DEFENSE

 

The deal, known as a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, calls for at

least $3.8 billion a year in aid, up from $3.1 billion annually under

the current pact, which expires in 2018, officials say. Netanyahu had

originally sought upwards of $4.5 billion a year.

 

The new package for the first time will incorporate money for Israeli

missile defense, which until now has been funded ad hoc by Congress.

U.S. lawmakers have in recent years given Israel up to $600 million in

annual discretionary funds for this purpose. Officials say Israel has

agreed not to lobby Congress for additional missile defense funds during

the life of the new MOU, a pledge expected to be made in a side letter

or annex to the agreement. But the wording is likely to be flexible

enough to allow exceptions in case of a war or other major crisis.

 

Barring a last-minute snag, the new agreement is expected to be

officially rolled out within days, possibly as early as this week, one

source close to the matter said. Another source familiar with the

negotiations confirmed that the signing would be "in the coming days".

 

It will not be signed by Obama and Netanyahu, who have had a fraught

relationship, but instead by lower-ranking officials, in keeping with

the way the two governments have formally sealed previous deals of this

type.Netanyahu gave ground on several major points. He conceded to a

U.S. demand for a gradual phasing-out of the amount of aid money - now

26.3 percent - that Israel can spend on its own military industries

rather than on American products. The provision originated in the 1980s

to help Israel build up its defense industry, which is now a major

global player.

 

Netanyahu also agreed to end Israel's use of 13 percent of the U.S.

money on military fuel purchases, officials said. Obama and Netanyahu

will both be in New York next week for the opening of the U.N. General

Assembly, and officials have not ruled out the possibility of a meeting

on the sidelines.

 

Negotiators working behind closed doors had all but completed the new

package several weeks ago. But an announcement was quietly put on hold

as objections were raised by a key pro-Israel lawmaker, Republican U.S.

Senator Lindsey Graham, who had called for a more generous and less

restrictive aid package, sources familiar with the matter said.

 

It was unclear, however, whether the administration's differences with

Graham had been resolved or it had decided to go ahead with the

announcement anyway. U.S. congressional approval is needed each year for

disbursement of the aid to Israel as part of the annual budget process.

But little opposition is expected in Congress, where support for

Israel's security is strong.

 

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-israel-should-keep-building-west-bank-settlements/

 

Republican front-runner rejects construction freeze as precursor to

peace talks with Palestinians, blasts ‘devastating’ Gaza rocket fire

into Israel

 

By Times of Israel staff May 4, 2016, 1:53 am

 

Israel should keep building settlements in the West Bank, Republican

front-runner Donald Trump said on Tuesday, linking construction to the

continued rocket threat that Israel faces from the Gaza Strip and which

has seen it drawn into three wars against Hamas-run Gaza in recent years.

 

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top

stories   Free Sign up!

 

In an interview with the British Daily Mail on Tuesday, Trump said there

should be no pause in settlement construction, a position at odds with

that of the Obama administration, which in 2009 encouraged Prime

Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to implement a freeze new construction for

10 months in an effort restart stalled peace talks with the

Palestinians. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas refused to

negotiate until the very end of the freeze, which Netanyahu then refused

to extend.

 

Asked if there should be a pause in settlement building, Trump was

quoted answering as follows: "No, I don’t think it is, because I think

Israel should have – they really have to keep going. They have to keep

moving forward… I don’t think there should be a pause… Look: Missiles

were launched into Israel, and Israel, I think, never was properly

treated by our country. I mean, do you know what that is, how

devastating that is?"

 

"You have hundreds and, I guess, thousands of missiles being launched

into Israel, who would put up with that? Who would stand for it?" he added.

 

In July 2014, Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in an effort to

stop rocket fire from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip into Israel, which came

after Operation Brother’s Keeper in the West Bank following the

kidnapping and murder by a Hamas-affiliated cell of three Israeli

teenagers earlier that summer. Over the course of the 50-day war, Hamas

and other Gaza terror groups launched thousands of rockets

indiscriminately into Israel.

 

Sporadic rocket fire into Israel continues, to which Israel usually

responds with air strikes.

 

Trump’s stance favoring settlements is at odds with traditional US

opposition to the settlement enterprise. Settlements are seen as an

impediment by proponents of the two-state solution, which who would see

a Palestinian state alongside Israel in most of the West Bank and all of

Gaza. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, dismantling all settlements

there. Hamas took over in a coup against the Palestinian Authority in 2007.

 

Trump said that despite supporting continued settlement building — a

sticking point for the Palestinians who insist all construction must

stop while negotiations take place — he’d like to help restart peace talks.

 

"With all of that being said, I would love to see if peace could be

negotiated. A lot of people say that’s not a deal that’s possible. But I

mean lasting peace, not a peace that lasts for two weeks and they start

launching missiles again. So we’ll see what happens," he said.

 

Asked about Netanyahu, Trump said he was a "very good guy" whom he

didn’t know that well.

 

"I think I’d have a very good relationship with him,’ Trump said, adding

that he thinks "Obama has been extremely bad to Israel."

 

Israel began building settlements in the West Bank after it captured the

territory, hitherto controlled by Jordan, in the Six Day War in 1967.

Today, over 250,000 Israelis live in West Bank settlements and outposts.

 

 

From: "Come Carpentier comecarpentier@gmail.com [shamireaders]"

Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:32:19 +0530

 

http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Angry-Republicans-Push-Big-in-General_News-Israel_Israel-Runs-Washington_Obama_Republican-Pandering-160920-218.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/07/has-israel-effectively-colonized-the-united-states/

 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2016

 

Has Israel Effectively Colonized the United States?

 

by  BADRUDDIN KHAN

 

We normally think of colonizers as large countries, and the colonized as

smaller and weaker nations. But this is not always the case.

Colonization does not require occupation. It merely requires the

subjugation of the colonized. With ambition, superior information and

calculation, and the right mindset, smaller nations can (and have in the

past) colonized and dominated larger and nominally more powerful countries.

 

India was successfully colonized by tiny Britain in the 18th century.

The vehicle for colonization was the East India Company. It was only

after the Indian mutiny that Britain acted directly and sent in troops

to establish the British Raj. For the next 200 years India was drained

of its wealth, its economy was restructured to support England’s needs

and global ambitions, and its people militarized to fight and die on

behalf of the British crown. The Indian leaders who remained were

willing participants in this venture; those who felt otherwise were

destroyed or marginalized.

 

In a similar vein, Israel today is in the process of colonizing the

United States, which is vital to its global projection and exercise of

power. The steps Israel is taking are visible to all (as was the case

with British designs on India) and yet it is remarkably difficult to

connect the dots while such a takeover is in process. Or, to do anything

about it.

 

Colonization does not mean total control of everything

 

It means total control of what matters. The British were interested in

Indian wealth, and a standing army of Indians willing to die for their

wars. They couldn’t care less about India’s internal petty politics that

did not directly or indirectly impact their mission. An effective

"divide and conquer" strategy pit Indians against each other and

discouraged any kind of coordinated response, or sedition. The British

leveraged their "outsider advantage" to objectively collect data with

which to calculate and coordinate which Indian princes to support in

battles, and which to connive with. Like pieces on a chessboard, Indian

leaders exhausted themselves through internal battles, and were

prevailed to seek cover provided by the British. Small amounts of

leverage can change outcomes (as the Israeli lobby AIPAC has shown, in

its path to dominating Congress and regional/local US politics), and

over the years the British were able control and align India to the

British crown. Less than 10,000 English controlled colonial India, which

at that time had a population of 300 million.

 

It is instructive to note that while there were relatively few white

Englishmen, a class of local "brown sahibs" was developed, to actually

run things. This elite class was educated in English ways, and rewarded

monetarily and through social stature. Britain was too small a country

to ultimately matter by itself, but by leveraging India the English

could pursue their global ambitions. India was the "Jewel in the

(British) Crown".

 

Today, Israel has effective control of US policy in the Mideast, and

similar goals. Much has already been written about Israel’s control of

Congress. Israel is now edging towards control over the US Executive

Branch, with both presidential candidates supported by billionaires

whose #1 agenda is Israel (Saban and Adelson). The Supreme Court will be

one-third Jewish, and justices have community ties and families. As

Israel demonstrated through its successful intimidation of Judge

Goldstone, jurists are human and everyone has their price.

 

Israel’s "occupation force" in the US has long included AIPAC as well as

the dense network of community organizations at the State and local

levels. Through relationships that have been developed over years and

with unlimited funds at their disposal, the "Israel Lobby" ensures that

votes go the right way, and that opponents are squashed when Israel

demands unity. In 2003 at the onset of George Bush’s Iraq war this

occupation force was multiplied through the inclusion of Christian Zionists.

 

Critics of the Israel Lobby are marginalized by whatever means

available, including being called anti-Semitic. The Lobby has been

effective in securing massive aid packages for Israel even though

Israel’s per-capita GDP exceeds that of several European nations.

Israeli insiders permeate the US government, and it is US policy that

there be "no light" between the countries so that where Israel is

concerned there is no debate. Israel’s top priorities are the top

priorities of the US. There are of course instances where this does not

happen (such as, Iran) but the direction points to a tighter colonial

noose in the years ahead.

 

The media matters: establishing beliefs and narratives

 

The colonizer must be a "Sacred Object" above criticism or objective

review, and dangerous critics must be either destroyed or marginalized.

No Englishman in India spoke of the mother country and its ways with

anything other than reverence, even though during periods of the British

Raj England was in turmoil. Within England there was a free press and

active debate; but this was not permitted in India, about Britain. The

only acceptable posture was that of reverence.

 

Today Israel has a free press, and it is easy to read translations of

the Hebrew language press. Israeli commentators compare Netanyahu to

Hitler, Israel is called a racist apartheid state based on evidence, and

the extreme violence against and ongoing abuse of Palestinians is well

documented. But, these same conversations are forbidden in the US. No

newspaper would report them, nor are they permitted in polite company.

Transgressors are labeled anti-Semitic, whether Jewish or not.

 

In the US today, boycotts are seen as a permitted non-violent form of

free speech. Citizens have the right to boycott whatever they want from

wherever they want without risk of penalty. The sole exception is Israel.

 

Exceptionalism

 

The British conquests were "for God and country", and therefore

justified. The British were superior, the natives inferior. This setup

the moral justification for the mayhem wrought by the British as they

colonized Asia and the Mideast. At that time, all men were not born

equal, and it took the US Constitution to establish that self-evident fact.

 

Israel is seeking to revert to those days, by acting as though Arab

lives are inferior, and (more recently) promoting Islamophobia to serve

their Christian Zionism wing. In 2003, uber Zionist Bernard Lewis posed

as "Arab expert" and advised president Bush that the only language Arabs

understood was force. This helped to justify the attack on Iraq, as part

of a neocon plan to "creatively destroy" the sovereign Arab states in

Israel’s neighborhood, to facilitate Israel’s dominance. The Nazis at

Nuremberg were shown greater respect than Saddam and his Ba’at

leadership, and the contempt for Arabs was in full display.

 

Today, Israeli Jews are in the process of destroying Palestinian society

and erasing Palestinian culture, with impunity. Churches and mosques are

both being destroyed, though Israel would prefer to keep the spotlight

on mosques, to fan a religious war between Islam on one side, and

Christians and Jews on the other.

 

While the Israeli press records and debates Israel’s bad behavior,

Americans are forbidden to publicly debate Israeli behavior critically.

 

Three Recent Examples:

 

1/ During the Congressional debate around the Iran deal president Obama

had negotiated, Senator Chuck Schumer said he would vote "against"…not

because of any independent analysis, but because this is what Netanyahu

wanted. In other words, he publically said that he would follow the

Israeli prime ministers’ direction, over that of his own president.

Because, as he said, he was "guardian of Israel".

 

A sitting US senator proclaimed allegiance to a foreign country, and

nobody asked him to resign!

 

2/ The Israeli Prime Minister addresses the full US Congress to lobby

against the Iran nuclear deal. When the deal does go through, Israel

demands more US aid! And, is likely to get it. One can try various

definitions of "blackmail" to see which one fits.

 

The US president is impotent in dealing with Israel. The so-called "pro

Israel lobby" effectively functions like an agent of Israel. The Israel

lobby is playing the role of the East India Company, in Britain’s

colonization of India.

 

3/ The Israel Lobby interferes massively in US foreign policy in the

region. The "mainstream" media such as NYT spins events to reflect

Israel’s views (bureau chiefs are typically Jewish and resident in

Israel). The Iraq war cost $1 trillion+ and cost thousands of US lives,

created ISIS, and was pushed by the Lobby. Israel benefits from the

distraction.

 

The colonization of the US by Israel is becoming increasingly explicit.

It is now increasingly seen as "normal" to have a double standard: one

for Israel, another for the rest of the world. The boycott-Israel

movement is an example of that: you can boycott anything or anyone, but

not Israel. This is true power, and the face of colonization.

 

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/09/harder-times-palestine-clinton-wins-election-160912073343128.html

 

Harder times for Palestine if Clinton wins US election

 

It is clear that Hillary Clinton will not be visiting any Arab capital

with a proffered fig leaf.

 

13 Sep 2016 06:44 GMT |

 

Stanley L Cohen

 

Stanley L Cohen is an attorney and human rights activist who has done

extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.

 

Have the Palestinians ever faced a worse American electoral season? A

sociopathic, New York "strong-man" narcissist versus a neo-liberal

Zionist: whoever succeeds - and anything can happen this time - we know

it won't be good for Palestine. Both candidates gave almost identical

speeches to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC)

convention this spring.

 

The temptation is to think Republican Donald Trump - with his love for

authoritarian "winners" like Israel, and his vow to "bomb to hell" out

of every problem - makes a better friend to Israeli aggression. Yet the

record reminds us, with Hillary Clinton's long history of defending

Zionism, the Palestinians are between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

 

The ironies run deep with this Democratic candidate. Clinton holds the

unprecedented distinction of being the only major party nominee, man or

woman, ever to have actually visited the Gaza Strip - a historic trip

she made at her husband's side in the final weeks of 1998, when US

President Bill Clinton faced impeachment at home.

 

Together during the first state visit by an American president to the

occupied territories they attended the opening of the new Gaza airport,

the signing of a revised Palestine National Charter, and meetings to

shore up the Wye River Accords.

 

Demolition of Palestinian aspirations

 

I recall visiting the new $83m airport with local Rafah friends, months

after her visit, and not a single commercial flight had been permitted.

 

The terminal stood shimmering and empty in the blazing midday heat, a

mirage. The paint still smelled fresh, and for kicks, we raced in civil

defence Jeeps down one of the empty runways, past the control tower and

hangars.

 

The next year, the whole place would be blown to bits by Israeli

warplanes, the tower a smoking ruin, the runways full of bomb craters.

 

The Clintons were long-gone by then, and no one in the US government

raised a hint of objection to what was both the symbolic and the

practical demolition of Palestinian aspirations to fly free of the

occupation - Gulf State and German money had built the place, who cared

if the Israelis wanted it destroyed?

 

A year later, Clinton's greeting with Suha Arafat stoked tabloid

hysteria screams of "blood libel", as if the First Lady, by embracing a

Muslim woman, had committed treason - and she moved swiftly to a vocal,

pro-Zionism position, where she remains today.

 

During that very same visit, Clinton campaigned to win the US senate

seat for New York, while in "the 51st state".

 

Every candidate makes pilgrimage there, to assure New Yorkers that they

love Israel more than the next guy: it is a sloppy mess, with

politicians competing for AIPAC approval, by kneeling to kiss the ring

of a foreign power.

 

As a senator, she has visited the illegal wall destroying Palestinian

life, praising it for its guarantee of Israeli 'security'; she visits

Jerusalem, and repeatedly calls it 'Israel'...

 

Yet Hillary out-did them all in her fawning, gratuitously inserting the

Zionist formula for Jerusalem's subjugation in an official letter to an

Orthodox Jewish union, writing that she believed the city to be "the

eternal and indivisible capital" of Israel, while promising to move the

US embassy there from Tel Aviv.

 

The verbal formulation has long been a shibboleth of Israeli

expansionism - Republicans in the Congress had passed a bill - the

Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 - ordering President Clinton to move the

embassy, or face budget consequences.

 

However, the law contained a presidential waiver, and Clinton invoked it

to get out of complying. This grotesque pantomime has has been repeated

every year for the past 20 years, as Congress renews the law, each

president opts out, and the embassy remains in Tel Aviv.

 

Naive or manipulated?

 

At the time, many wondered if the First Lady had been naive, or

manipulated - her adoption of the language of Israeli conquest and

annexation stood in sharp contrast to her party, her husband's official

position,and international law. It also contradicted the US State

Department's policy.

 

If she did not understand its dangerous implications, then her

competency was in question; otherwise, it represented a shift for the

party, signalling quiet abandonment of the Palestinians.

 

Her record since then speaks for itself. As a senator, she has visited

the illegal wall destroying Palestinian life, praising it for its

guarantee of Israeli "security"; she visits Jerusalem, and repeatedly

calls it "Israel"; and as a 2008 presidential candidate, her campaign

extolled Israel's "right" to an "undivided Jerusalem as its capital".

 

Since the beating she took for embracing Madame Arafat, Clinton is like

the child who has touched a hot stove - she fears the Palestinians and

their cause, and will not take it up again.

 

Palestinians will find no comfort at her official website. A look at her

current Israel page, "Hillary Clinton and Israel: a 30-Year Record of

Friendship, Leadership and Strength", gives the general drift of her

Zionism - record-breaking military budget increases for Israel's

war-making machine; opposing the Goldstone Report into rights violations

during the Gaza conflict; criticising the United Nations for its votes

against Israel; intelligence sharing with Mossad; and so on.

 

She promises, when she is president, to "defend Israel on the world

stage" by opposing "anti-Israel bias" in international forums (the

International Criminal Court and human rights venues), vowing the

Security Council will never help Palestine; and to "stand up against"

the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, while cutting off efforts

to recognise Palestinian statehood.

 

It is clear that Clinton will not - as Obama did - be visiting any Arab

capital with a proffered fig leaf. If, as Shakespeare warns us, "What's

past is prologue," Clinton can be expected as president to mount the

ramparts of Fortress Israel, and vigorously wave the flag - more

aggressively than Bush or Reagan, or any president before her,

portending hard times for Palestine.

 

Stanley L Cohen is a lawyer and human rights activist who has done

extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.

 

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not

necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

 

--