The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
nObama's money and Israel's sovereignty
by Caroline B. Glick
~~~
. Military Readiness and nObama's Transgender Decree The battle over what accommodations to make for the transgendered has been raging for the last couple of years. Barack nObama's social engineering of the military has been ongoing since Jan. 20, 2009. By the end of this week, the two fronts will converge, as nObama will lift the ban on transgendered service members.
In December 2010, Barack nObama signed the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the Pentagon policy (signed by Bill Clinton) prohibiting open homosexuals from serving in the military. After a year of contrived review, transgendered individuals will likewise be able to serve openly as of July 1, 2016 — and announcement made during "LGBT Pride Month" and just in time for Independence Day. Coincidence, we're sure.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced last year that the ban would be lifted unless a review revealed doing so would have "adverse impact on military effectiveness and readiness." It will have adverse consequences, but nObama had no intention of ever admitting it, stubbornly going full speed ahead with his "fundamental transformation" of our nation.
We face threats from the Islamic State, as well as Russia and China on the rise, and nObama's focused on socially engineering the military. Maybe those three geopolitical threats are shaking in their boots knowing that Bradley can become "Chelsea" and still wear the uniform, but we seriously doubt it.
All humans have inherent, God-given dignity and should be treated with respect, but that doesn't mean undermining national security for the celebration of mental illness. And make no mistake: nObama's objective isn't about dignity, and it's most certainly not about what makes our military a more effective fighting force. It's about making the normalization of homosexuality a matter of law in regard to Defense Department personnel, practices and policy — all in an effort to pander to female Democrat voters in an election year. -The Patriot Post
.
TransCanada Sues Over Keystone Politics
Barack nObama's November Keystone rejection was a decision marred with corruption, deceit and outright lies. Economically — and, yes, even environmentally — there simply was no good reason to bury the project. Lo and behold, just as Keystone advocates predicted, the oil pipeline that could be helping to propel the U.S. economy is now closer to heading overseas.
But TransCanada isn't going to let the nObama administration off the hook for its gerrymandering that cost the company considerable monetary losses. On Friday, the company launched a $15 billion lawsuit in which the U.S. is charged with violating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). TransCanada alleges, "None of [the] technical analysis or legal wrangling was material to the administration's final decision. Instead, the rejection was symbolic and based merely on the desire to make the U.S. appear strong on climate change, even though the State Department had itself concluded that denial would have no significant impact on the environment."
The company is absolutely right, and the trial should be cut and dry. As Bloomberg reported, TransCanada contends it "had every reason to believe it would win approval to build Keystone XL." Unfortunately, politics — namely, the Paris Climate Accord that passed in December — got in the way.
Meanwhile, the Democrat Party is restructuring its platform to include a formal provision that facilitates the nObama administration's witch hunt against skeptics of man-made "climate change." Also on Friday, a committee agreed to language that states, "Democrats ... respectfully request the Department of Justice investigate allegations of corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies accused of misleading shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change." They may want to rethink that position.
Imagine how much progress America could make if Democrats spent time debating things that actually matter (like how to systematically dismantle Islamic militants). Good for TransCanada for taking them to task. -The Patriot Post
.
.
Red Democrats: Meet the Communists and Socialists
on the Dems Platform Drafting Committee
by Trevor Loudon
.
.
{trevorloudon.com} ~ Several communists and radical anti-American socialists now serve on the influential Democratic Party Platform Drafting Committee... None of them covertly infiltrated their way onto this important body. All were appointed at the request of Bernie Sanders, liar-Hilly Clinton or at the discretion of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Many of those appointed have been involved with Democratic Socialists of America, which despite its name is a communist group based on the theories of Italian Communist party theoretician Antonio Gramsci – an advocate of revolution through infiltration. Others come from more traditionally communist groups. These appointments prove that whether Bernie, or liar-Hilly or loose lips-Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren prove victorious in the primary, Marxists will set the policy direction for the Democratic Party. No matter who wins, the fix is in for socialism... http://www.trevorloudon.com/2016/06/red-democrats-meet-the-communists-and-socialists-on-the-dems-platform-drafting-committee/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewZeal+%28New+Zeal+Blog%29
.
Supreme Court vacates bribery conviction
of former Va. Gov. McDonnell
by foxnews.com
.
{foxnews.com} ~ A unanimous Supreme Court on Monday overturned the corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in a ruling that makes it harder to prosecute elected officials accused of bribery... The justices ruled the jury received faulty instructions about what constitutes bribery under federal law. McDonnell was convicted in 2014 of accepting more than $165,000 in gifts and loans from a wealthy businessman in exchange for promoting a dietary supplement... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/supreme-court-overturns-bribery-conviction-former-va-gov-mcdonnell.html
.
Muslim former FBI agent who refused
to wiretap fellow Muslims now Homeland Security Adviser
.
.
{conservativepost.com} ~ Back in 2002, Gamal Abdel-Hafiz was in the FBI, and refused to conduct a secret recording of a Muslim suspect. He said: “a Muslim doesn’t record another Muslim.”... This was quite controversial at the time, and there were calls for him to be fired. But now the foxes own the henhouse, and he is advising the President on how to deal with the terror threat. That explains a great deal. Abdel-Hafiz should have been fired in 2002, immediately after demonstrating that his allegiance to Islam was greater than his allegiance to the United States. Instead, he is now in a greater position of influence than ever... http://conservativepost.com/muslim-former-fbi-agent-who-refused-to-wiretap-fellow-muslims-now-homeland-security-adviser/
.
Federal Judge: BLM Rules on Fracking Are Illegal
by Bob Adelmann
.
.
{thenewamerican.com} ~ An nObama-appointed federal judge ruled last Tuesday that the Interior Department and its agency the Bureau of Land Management overreached its authority in issuing rules on fracking... He declared: "Congress has not delegated to the Department of the Interior the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing [fracking]. Its effort to do so through the Fracking Rule is in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law." When the Fracking Rule was originally published by the BLM in March 2015, the Independent Petroleum Association of America immediately filed a suit, which was joined by the states of Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, and Utah. Federal Judge Scott Skavdahl, the same judge who ruled on Tuesday, placed a temporary injunction on implementing that rule until he had time to review it in detail. That temporary injunction would have expired last Friday. Skavdahl didn’t consider the Fracking Rule itself, which would have allowed government bureaucrats to swam all over some 100,000 oil and gas wells on federal lands while checking for water and chemical leaks; inspecting piping and tubing; and making sure all the new paperwork was in order, which includes listing publicly the various chemicals used in the fracking process. Instead he got to the core issue: Did the Interior Department and its BLM have authority to issue such regulations in the first place?... http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/23513-federal-judge-blm-rules-on-fracking-are-illegal
.
The New York Times’ Favorite Source
on Iran Was Getting Paid by Boeing
by Ira Stoll
.
Thomas Pickering
.
{algemeiner.com} ~ The disclosure that Thomas Pickering, a former State Department official who advocated the Iran nuclear deal, was also a paid consultant to Boeing creates a scandal for the New York Times... The Times mentioned Ambassador Pickering in at least 29 pieces in the past decade, according to an Algemeiner analysis of the Times archives. Exactly zero of the 29 instances made any disclosure at all of Mr. Pickering’s paid work for Boeing, which stands to reap tens of billions in additional revenue made possible by the sanctions relief Iran got in the nuclear deal. The paid work for the American aircraft manufacturer by the former diplomat came to light in a dispatch last week by Betsy Woodruff that was published by the Daily Beast, which said: ... http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/06/27/scandal-the-new-york-times-favorite-source-on-iran-was-getting-paid-by-boeing/
.
After the Israel-Turkey Agreement, Turkey
and Hamas Will Still Collaborate
by Yoni Ben Menachem
.
Hamas’ Khaled Mashal and Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
.
{jcpa.org} ~ A high-ranking Hamas delegation visited Ankara on June 24, 2016. At its helm was Khaled Mashal, chairman of the movement’s Political Bureau... Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave Mashal the latest updates on the concluding stages of Turkey’s negotiations with Israel on a normalization agreement between the two states. On issues regarding the Gaza Strip, Hamas and Turkey have been closely collaborating since the Mavi Marmara flotilla affair. The tie between them stems from the common ideology of Hamas and the ruling Justice and Development Party in Turkey as affiliates of the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood movement. In addition, Erdogan and Mashal have close, friendly relations... http://jcpa.org/israel-turkey-agreement-turkey-hamas-will-still-collaborate/
.
Israel’s shortsighted rapprochement with Turkey
by Michael Rubin
.
A Turkish flag atop the Turkish embassy as an Israeli flag is seen nearby, in Tel Aviv
.
{aei.org} ~ It’s official: More than six years after Israel’s raid on the Mavi Marmara in international waters, Turkey and Israel have officially buried the hatchet... Israel has already apologized and agreed to pay compensation to the families of the nine Turks killed in the raid one of whom had dual US citizenship. While Turkey had demanded Israel lift its blockade of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has agreed to a formula in which Turkey will enhance its aid, but ship it through the Israeli port of Ashdod instead of into Gaza directly. Turkey will also stop vetoing Israel’s cooperation with international organizations like NATO and Erdoğan has promised to use Turkey’s good offices to try to convince Hamas to return the bodies of Israeli soldiers missing in Gaza. In addition, the deal makes possible — theoretically at least — greater Israel-Turkey commercial cooperation, especially with regard to gas and water. Diplomats will say it’s a win-win situation. It’s not. Erdoğan precipitated the crisis, using a “charity” affiliated with Al Qaeda, to do its bidding... http://www.aei.org/publication/israels-shortsighted-rapprochement-with-turkey/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AEITODAY&utm_campaign=062416
.
GOP lawmakers: nObama illegally spent money to relinquish Internet control
by Joel Gehrke
.
.
{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ A federal government agency has been illegally spending taxpayer money to develop a plan to transfer control of the Internet away from the U.S. government, according to a pair of top Republicans... Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, echoed other lawmakers who fear that the impending transfer will allow foreign governments with a history of human rights abuses to gain influence over the management of the Internet. Congress barred that agency from using public money to facilitate the Internet transfer in the omnibus spending bill that passed last December, but the agency has continued to work on the project... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-lawmakers-obama-illegally-spent-money-to-relinquish-internet-control/article/2595013
.
Sorry, But We Won’t Rewrite the Bible
for Gays and Lesbians
by Michael Brown
.
.
{townhall.com} ~ In response to my open letter to Isaac Archuleta, who describes himself as a bisexual Christian, Richard S. posted a lengthy comment on my personal Facebook page, including this statement... “The logical conclusion to your theology gays can change and if they don't it must be because they don't have faith or are deceived is extremely damaging to the souls of gay people. That was the point of Isaac's letter. No amount of nice words will erase the damage. Only honest reconsideration of your theology will bring healing. Please don't discount/deny the faith of your gay brothers and sisters. They have much to contribute to the church.” Of course, Richard has completely misstated what conservative Christians believe we don’t say or believe that if gays don’t change “it must be because they don't have faith or are deceived”, just as other parts of his comment not quoted here were also based on serious misunderstandings. But that is secondary to the bigger issue, and Richard is one of many who are telling serious Bible believers that, “Only honest reconsideration of your theology will bring healing.”... http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2016/06/27/sorry-but-we-wont-rewrite-the-bible-for-gays-and-lesbians-n2183844?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
.
.
nObama's money and Israel's sovereignty
by Caroline B. Glick
.
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ This week, Israeli parliment member (MK) Michael Oren stood up to his boss in the Kulanu party, Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, to the political Left, including hundreds of retired security brass, and to the IDF General Staff. The former ambassador to Washington urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to sign the multi-year security assistance deal that US President Barack nObama demands Israel accept.
The problem isn’t the money. By all accounts, nObama’s multi-year military assistance package is generous.
The problem is that in exchange for the expanded military aid, nObama is demanding that Israel surrender its diplomatic and military independence to the White House.
For more than 40 years, every US administration – including the nObama administration – that has sought to harm Israel in any way has hit up against an unmovable obstacle. Whether the White House wanted to enable the UN Security Council to pass an anti-Israel resolution, place an embargo on military exports or bureaucratically slow them down to force Israel to stand down during wartime; whether the White House wanted block expanded trade deals, crowd out Israel’s military industries, or sell game changing weapons systems to Israel’s enemies, the US Congress has always stopped it in its tracks.
Israel-haters in the US speak endlessly about the supposedly all powerful and malign “Israel lobby,” which controls US foreign affairs. But the simple truth is that it wouldn’t matter all that much if AIPAC were to shut down tomorrow. Even without AIPAC, Israel would enjoy the support of Congress.
It would continue to enjoy that support because the vast majority of Americans support Israel and expect their representatives in Congress to support Israel.
In other words, the “Israel lobby” is none other than the American people.
As Oren warned, nObama’s military assistance package would disenfranchise the American public when it comes to US policy toward Israel. The agreement bars Israel from asking that Congress augment the assistance that nObama has offered and bars Congress from acting. So if a future administration chooses to breach the agreement, or to suspend it, or if conditions change and Israel requires other assistance, Congress would be barred from stepping into the breach.
Then there is the assistance agreement’s assault on Israel’s military independence.
Israel’s military industries are the primary guarantor of its independent capacity to fight and win wars.
Successive administrations have sought to restrict the activities of Israel’s military industries and have used the military assistance to achieve their goal.
Israeli critics of US assistance note that Israel’s military industries are the primary casualties of the aid.
Currently, the US allows Israel to use a mere 25 percent of its assistance at home. As a consequence, the main beneficiary of US military assistance to Israel are US defense contractors.
Critics of the US aid argue that if Israel stops receiving military assistance, far from harming the economy, the move would strengthen Israeli industry and expand economic growth. The thousands of jobs at US defense contractors that are created through US military assistance to Israel, will move to Israel, and go to Israelis.
Moreover, whereas Israel gives the US its technology for free as part of the security assistance package, if it stops accepting the assistance, it will be free to sell its technology to other partners such as India, which will eagerly partner with Israel in weapons development and production projects.
Strategically, canceling the US military aid package would massively expand Israel’s military independence of action.
On the other hand, the deal that nObama is now trying to coerce Netanyahu to sign will require Jerusalem to give up the 25 percent of the military assistance it is now allowed to spend at home. Oren noted that such a concession will cost thousands of Israelis their jobs.
But even worse, an Israeli agreement to spend all future US military assistance in the US would be tantamount to an Israeli agreement to concede its military independence to the White House for a fistful of dollars. Without the independent capacity to develop and produce defense systems, spare parts and munitions, Israel will be unable to take military action without White House approval.
nObama’s own record makes clear what Israel would be risking.
Two years ago during Operation Protective Edge, nObama initiated an unofficial embargo on missile transfers to Israel. In an act of economic warfare, nObama also temporarily banned US commercial flights from traveling to Ben-Gurion Airport and so threatened the economy. nObama undertook these steps as a means to coerce Israel into accepting Hamas’s cease-fire terms.
Aside from nObama’s terms themselves, the most distressing aspect of the current fight over nObama’s defense deal is that the IDF senior brass – in active duty and reserves – supports nObama.
This support goes hand in hand with a series of actions taken by current and former senior security officials in recent months and weeks. Taken together, they strengthen the unpleasant and distressing conclusion that the nObama administration has unreasonably close ties to Israel’s security establishment and is using them to undermine the elected government.
Since last month, retired IDF general officers have produced two major position papers dealing with various aspects of a future Israeli withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Their most notable common feature is that they both reflect the nObama administration’s policies on the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
The first paper, “Security First,” was produced by a group called Commanders for Israel’s Security. With the signatures of more than 200 retired generals, and recently endorsed by former prime minister and defense minister Ehud Barak, the CIS paper calls for Israel to announce that it is ending its claims to sovereign rights over Judea and Samaria. It also calls for Israel to take a number of unilateral steps in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem in order to show the Palestinians that it is serious about surrendering the areas in the framework of a peace deal with the PLO.
Among other things, the generals call for Israel to administratively divide Jerusalem. The Arab neighborhoods should be administered by an Arabs-only municipal authority that will operate within Jerusalem’s city hall but be autonomous in its decisions.
The generals also call for a complete cessation of all building activities in Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria outside the separation barrier. Residents of these communities, they recommend, should be pressured to abandon their homes in exchange for government money.
The second paper was prepared by the Washington- based Center for a New American Security. CNAS is led by former senior nObama administration officials.
“A Security System for the Two-State Solution” was authored by leading members of US Gen. John Allen’s team of advisers. In 2013, Secretary of State hanoi-John Kerry hired Allen to prepare a security plan that would convince the Israeli government and public to surrender the Jordan Valley in the framework of a peace deal with the Palestinians. The public, and the government rejected his recommendations.
Among the paper’s co-authors are Maj.-Gen. (res.) Gadi Shamni, the former IDF attaché to Washington, and Nimord Novik, Shimon Peres’s former chief of staff. Novik also played a central role in writing the “Security First” paper.
In 2013-2014, Shamni raised a lot of Israeli eyebrows when it was reported Allen had hired him to serve on his team. Shamni’s closest point man in his work for Allen was hanoi-Kerry’s lead negotiator Martin Indyk. Indyk viewed Shamni’s presence on the team as a means to subvert public opinion. Indyk sought to recruit other retired IDF generals to work with Shamni to lobby Israelis to support Allen’s plan, which required Israel to surrender its control over the border with Jordan
The CNAS report essentially parrots Allen’s plan.
Like Allen’s plan, the CNAS plan claims to provide security arrangements that will provide for Israel’s defense even after it withdraws from the Jordan Valley, and the rest of Judea and Samaria.
To this end, the report purports to “Build a multilayered system that addresses Israel’s security concerns and in which Israel retains the right of self-defense as well as the capacity to defend itself by itself, but ensures that this is only necessary in extremis.”
And who determines whether Israel has reached such an extreme situation? The Americans will. The basic premise of the CNAS paper is that the US military will replace the IDF as the guarantor of Israel’s survival.
US forces will patrol the Jordan Valley along with Palestinian forces, which they will train.
More important, the Americans will stand at the helm of a security committee composed of Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians. The Americans will dictate the tempo of Israeli withdrawals from Judea and Samaria, including from the international border with Jordan. If Israel believes that the Palestinians are not able or willing to maintain security in the areas that Israel is to vacate, and the Americans disagree, Israel will be forced to withdraw despite its objections.
If it fails to do so, or if it acts militarily against US objections, it will lose US diplomatic backing.
Shamni’s paper, like nObama’s defense assistance deal, is based on one strategic assumption: That Israel can trust the administration – any administration that ever will be – so much that its best bet is to give up its diplomatic and strategic independence in exchange for American weapons and nObama’s promises. Moreover, it can commit its survival to the proposition that the US is strategically infallible.
On that point, it is worth noting that this week, terrorists whose affiliation was not reported detonated a car bomb along Jordan’s border with Iraq and Syria.
Six people were killed.
The affected area has been the site of several recent attacks by Iranian-allied forces. As J.E. Dyer has noted, Iran seeks to use its control over the Iraqi army’s campaign against ISIS in Falluja as a stepping stone in its westward expansion into Jordan.
In response to the attack, the Jordanian military declared the northern and eastern border areas closed military zones.
In the CNAS report, the threat posed to Israel from the east through Jordan is casually dismissed. While the authors allow that such a threat exists in theory, they insist that an attack from the east is “much less likely since the fall of Saddam Hussein.”
Revealing the unity of purpose between the CIS and CNAS, both were presented in New York earlier this month at an event sponsored by the far-left Israel Policy Forum. The forum is considered a major player today due to its intimate ties to Democratic presidential candidate liar-Hilly Clinton.
Shamni and his colleagues admitted, “Persuading Israelis to entrust part of their security to the United States will be one of the most challenging hurdles to an agreement.”
Let us hope that it remains an insurmountable obstacle.
The problem isn’t the money. By all accounts, nObama’s multi-year military assistance package is generous.
The problem is that in exchange for the expanded military aid, nObama is demanding that Israel surrender its diplomatic and military independence to the White House.
For more than 40 years, every US administration – including the nObama administration – that has sought to harm Israel in any way has hit up against an unmovable obstacle. Whether the White House wanted to enable the UN Security Council to pass an anti-Israel resolution, place an embargo on military exports or bureaucratically slow them down to force Israel to stand down during wartime; whether the White House wanted block expanded trade deals, crowd out Israel’s military industries, or sell game changing weapons systems to Israel’s enemies, the US Congress has always stopped it in its tracks.
Israel-haters in the US speak endlessly about the supposedly all powerful and malign “Israel lobby,” which controls US foreign affairs. But the simple truth is that it wouldn’t matter all that much if AIPAC were to shut down tomorrow. Even without AIPAC, Israel would enjoy the support of Congress.
It would continue to enjoy that support because the vast majority of Americans support Israel and expect their representatives in Congress to support Israel.
In other words, the “Israel lobby” is none other than the American people.
As Oren warned, nObama’s military assistance package would disenfranchise the American public when it comes to US policy toward Israel. The agreement bars Israel from asking that Congress augment the assistance that nObama has offered and bars Congress from acting. So if a future administration chooses to breach the agreement, or to suspend it, or if conditions change and Israel requires other assistance, Congress would be barred from stepping into the breach.
Then there is the assistance agreement’s assault on Israel’s military independence.
Israel’s military industries are the primary guarantor of its independent capacity to fight and win wars.
Successive administrations have sought to restrict the activities of Israel’s military industries and have used the military assistance to achieve their goal.
Israeli critics of US assistance note that Israel’s military industries are the primary casualties of the aid.
Currently, the US allows Israel to use a mere 25 percent of its assistance at home. As a consequence, the main beneficiary of US military assistance to Israel are US defense contractors.
Critics of the US aid argue that if Israel stops receiving military assistance, far from harming the economy, the move would strengthen Israeli industry and expand economic growth. The thousands of jobs at US defense contractors that are created through US military assistance to Israel, will move to Israel, and go to Israelis.
Moreover, whereas Israel gives the US its technology for free as part of the security assistance package, if it stops accepting the assistance, it will be free to sell its technology to other partners such as India, which will eagerly partner with Israel in weapons development and production projects.
Strategically, canceling the US military aid package would massively expand Israel’s military independence of action.
On the other hand, the deal that nObama is now trying to coerce Netanyahu to sign will require Jerusalem to give up the 25 percent of the military assistance it is now allowed to spend at home. Oren noted that such a concession will cost thousands of Israelis their jobs.
But even worse, an Israeli agreement to spend all future US military assistance in the US would be tantamount to an Israeli agreement to concede its military independence to the White House for a fistful of dollars. Without the independent capacity to develop and produce defense systems, spare parts and munitions, Israel will be unable to take military action without White House approval.
nObama’s own record makes clear what Israel would be risking.
Two years ago during Operation Protective Edge, nObama initiated an unofficial embargo on missile transfers to Israel. In an act of economic warfare, nObama also temporarily banned US commercial flights from traveling to Ben-Gurion Airport and so threatened the economy. nObama undertook these steps as a means to coerce Israel into accepting Hamas’s cease-fire terms.
Aside from nObama’s terms themselves, the most distressing aspect of the current fight over nObama’s defense deal is that the IDF senior brass – in active duty and reserves – supports nObama.
This support goes hand in hand with a series of actions taken by current and former senior security officials in recent months and weeks. Taken together, they strengthen the unpleasant and distressing conclusion that the nObama administration has unreasonably close ties to Israel’s security establishment and is using them to undermine the elected government.
Since last month, retired IDF general officers have produced two major position papers dealing with various aspects of a future Israeli withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Their most notable common feature is that they both reflect the nObama administration’s policies on the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
The first paper, “Security First,” was produced by a group called Commanders for Israel’s Security. With the signatures of more than 200 retired generals, and recently endorsed by former prime minister and defense minister Ehud Barak, the CIS paper calls for Israel to announce that it is ending its claims to sovereign rights over Judea and Samaria. It also calls for Israel to take a number of unilateral steps in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem in order to show the Palestinians that it is serious about surrendering the areas in the framework of a peace deal with the PLO.
Among other things, the generals call for Israel to administratively divide Jerusalem. The Arab neighborhoods should be administered by an Arabs-only municipal authority that will operate within Jerusalem’s city hall but be autonomous in its decisions.
The generals also call for a complete cessation of all building activities in Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria outside the separation barrier. Residents of these communities, they recommend, should be pressured to abandon their homes in exchange for government money.
The second paper was prepared by the Washington- based Center for a New American Security. CNAS is led by former senior nObama administration officials.
“A Security System for the Two-State Solution” was authored by leading members of US Gen. John Allen’s team of advisers. In 2013, Secretary of State hanoi-John Kerry hired Allen to prepare a security plan that would convince the Israeli government and public to surrender the Jordan Valley in the framework of a peace deal with the Palestinians. The public, and the government rejected his recommendations.
Among the paper’s co-authors are Maj.-Gen. (res.) Gadi Shamni, the former IDF attaché to Washington, and Nimord Novik, Shimon Peres’s former chief of staff. Novik also played a central role in writing the “Security First” paper.
In 2013-2014, Shamni raised a lot of Israeli eyebrows when it was reported Allen had hired him to serve on his team. Shamni’s closest point man in his work for Allen was hanoi-Kerry’s lead negotiator Martin Indyk. Indyk viewed Shamni’s presence on the team as a means to subvert public opinion. Indyk sought to recruit other retired IDF generals to work with Shamni to lobby Israelis to support Allen’s plan, which required Israel to surrender its control over the border with Jordan
The CNAS report essentially parrots Allen’s plan.
Like Allen’s plan, the CNAS plan claims to provide security arrangements that will provide for Israel’s defense even after it withdraws from the Jordan Valley, and the rest of Judea and Samaria.
To this end, the report purports to “Build a multilayered system that addresses Israel’s security concerns and in which Israel retains the right of self-defense as well as the capacity to defend itself by itself, but ensures that this is only necessary in extremis.”
And who determines whether Israel has reached such an extreme situation? The Americans will. The basic premise of the CNAS paper is that the US military will replace the IDF as the guarantor of Israel’s survival.
US forces will patrol the Jordan Valley along with Palestinian forces, which they will train.
More important, the Americans will stand at the helm of a security committee composed of Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians. The Americans will dictate the tempo of Israeli withdrawals from Judea and Samaria, including from the international border with Jordan. If Israel believes that the Palestinians are not able or willing to maintain security in the areas that Israel is to vacate, and the Americans disagree, Israel will be forced to withdraw despite its objections.
If it fails to do so, or if it acts militarily against US objections, it will lose US diplomatic backing.
Shamni’s paper, like nObama’s defense assistance deal, is based on one strategic assumption: That Israel can trust the administration – any administration that ever will be – so much that its best bet is to give up its diplomatic and strategic independence in exchange for American weapons and nObama’s promises. Moreover, it can commit its survival to the proposition that the US is strategically infallible.
On that point, it is worth noting that this week, terrorists whose affiliation was not reported detonated a car bomb along Jordan’s border with Iraq and Syria.
Six people were killed.
The affected area has been the site of several recent attacks by Iranian-allied forces. As J.E. Dyer has noted, Iran seeks to use its control over the Iraqi army’s campaign against ISIS in Falluja as a stepping stone in its westward expansion into Jordan.
In response to the attack, the Jordanian military declared the northern and eastern border areas closed military zones.
In the CNAS report, the threat posed to Israel from the east through Jordan is casually dismissed. While the authors allow that such a threat exists in theory, they insist that an attack from the east is “much less likely since the fall of Saddam Hussein.”
Revealing the unity of purpose between the CIS and CNAS, both were presented in New York earlier this month at an event sponsored by the far-left Israel Policy Forum. The forum is considered a major player today due to its intimate ties to Democratic presidential candidate liar-Hilly Clinton.
Shamni and his colleagues admitted, “Persuading Israelis to entrust part of their security to the United States will be one of the most challenging hurdles to an agreement.”
Let us hope that it remains an insurmountable obstacle.
Comments