Skip to main content

Home/ Socialism and the End of the American Dream/ Group items tagged veto

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public Pain - 0 views

www.breitbart.com/...st-obama-closures-for-shutdown

government-shutdown Obammunism financial-crisis

shared by Gary Edwards on 08 Oct 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 08 Oct 13
     
    "The media may or may not report on these individual occurrences, but what they will never do is provide the American people with the full context and scope of Obama's shrill pettiness. Below is a list of illogical, unnecessary, and shockingly spiteful moves our government is making in the name of essential and non-essential. This list will be regularly updated, and if you have something you feel should be added, please email me at jnolte@breitbart.com or tweet me @NolteNC.Please include a link to the news source. -- 1. Treatments for Children Suffering From Cancer - The GOP have agreed to a compromise by funding part of the government, including the National Institutes of Health, which offers children with cancer last-chance experimental treatment. Obama has threatened to veto this funding. 2. The World War II Memorial - The WWII memorial on the DC Mall is a 24/7 open-air memorial that is not regularly staffed. Although the White House must have known that WWII veterans in their eighties and nineties had already booked flights to visit this memorial, the White House still found the resources to spitefully barricade the attraction.  The Republican National Committee has offered to cover any costs required to keep the memorial open. The White House refused. Moreover, like the NIH, the GOP will pass a compromise bill that would fund America's national parks. Obama has threatened to veto that bill. 3. Furloughed Military Chaplains Not Allowed to Work for Free - Furloughed military chaplains willing to celebrate Mass and baptisms for free have been told they will be punished for doing so. 4. Business Stops In Florida Keys - Although the GOP have agreed to compromise in the ongoing budget stalemate and fund the parks, Obama has threatened to veto that funding. As a result, small businesses, hunters, and commercial fisherman can't practice their trade. While the feds have deemed the personnel necessary to keep this area open "non-essential," the "enforcement office
Paul Merrell

Obama vetoes defense bill | TheHill - 0 views

thehill.com/...7798-obama-vetoes-defense-bill

war & peace Defense-spending Obama veto

shared by Paul Merrell on 24 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • President Obama on Thursday took the rare step of vetoing a major defense policy bill, upping the stakes in a faceoff with Republicans over government spending.  Obama used his veto pen on the National Defense Authorization Act during a photo-op in Oval Office.  “I’m going to be vetoing this authorization bill. I’m going to be sending it back to Congress, and my message to them is very simple: Let’s do this right,” Obama said. ADVERTISEMENTIt’s highly unusual for a president to veto the defense legislation, which typically becomes law with bipartisan support. The move amounts to a public rebuke of congressional Republicans, who warned that vetoing the $612 billion measure would put the nation’s security at risk.  The veto was Obama’s third this year and the fifth of his presidency. The Defense authorization bill has been vetoed four times in the last half-decade.  
  • Obama argues the bill irresponsibly skirts spending caps adopted in 2011 by putting $38 billion into a war fund not subject to the limits, a move he called a "gimmick." He has called on Congress to increase both defense and nondefense spending. “Let’s have a budget that properly funds our national security as well as economic security, let’s make sure that we’re able in a constructive way to reform our military spending to make it sustainable over the long term,” Obama said.  The president also objects to language in the bill that requires the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military prison to remain open. Republican leaders expressed outrage with Obama’s decision to veto the bill, pointing out that it puts a scheduled pay raise for troops, among other policy changes, at risk. “By placing domestic politics ahead of our troops, President Obama has put America’s national security at risk,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement.  “This indefensible veto blocks pay and vital tools for our troops while Iranian terrorists prepare to gain billions under the president’s nuclear deal."  
  • The move forces Congress to revisit the bill and send it back to the president. The military will continue to operate under last year’s defense policy if lawmakers cannot reach an agreement.  Republicans have pledged to attempt to override Obama’s veto, but it’s unlikely they have the votes to do so.  The Senate voted 70-27 to pass the bill, and overriding the veto would require 67 votes. But Democratic leaders have said some members would switch their vote to avoid defying the president.  The House vote count, 270-156, would not be enough to override a veto, which would take 290 votes. Asked how confident the White House is Obama’s veto will be sustained, White House spokesman Eric Schultz replied: “very.”
  • Paul Merrell on 24 Oct 15
     
    Now, can we also claw back that $600 billion Congress appropriated to provde training and weapons to "moderate" Syrian forces, now that Obama has ended the program? 
Paul Merrell

United Nations Security Council - Veto List - 0 views

www.un.org/...scact_veto_en.shtml

war & peace U.N. UN Security Council Resolution veto-list

shared by Paul Merrell on 19 Aug 14 - No Cached
  • Security Council - Veto List Security Council - Veto List (in reverse chronological order)
  • Date Draft Meeting Record Agenda Item Permanent Number Casting Negative Vote
  • Paul Merrell on 19 Aug 14
     
    Very handy record of which nations have vetoed U.N. Security Resolutions, in reverse chronological order. For each draft resolution, gives the date, a link to the draft resolution, a link to the transcript of the meeting, the topic of the agenda item, and the nation(s) exercising their veto power.  Very fast access, for example, to all the draft security council resolutions that the U.S. has vetoed in regard to Israel/Palestine. 
Paul Merrell

'US won't veto UN vote on settlements if Israel builds anew' | The Times of Israel - 0 views

www.timesofisrael.com/tlements-if-israel-builds-anew

war & peace Palestine Israel settlements U.N. veto

shared by Paul Merrell on 11 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • he United States reportedly issued Israel an ultimatum this week: announce new settlement construction and Washington won’t veto a Security Council resolution declaring West Bank settlements illegal.
  • Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected calls by senior ministers for construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank in response to an increase in Palestinian terrorism, at a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday. That was because the Obama administration had warned Netanyahu against announcing new construction over the Green Line in response to the uptick in terrorism, Channel 2 reported Tuesday. The report cited senior sources in the Israeli government as saying that the White House told Netanyahu that the US wouldn’t necessarily veto a French-sponsored resolution at the United Nations Security Council. The US has thus far been a staunch supporter of Israel at the UN, protecting it from condemnation in the 15-member council by using its veto power as a permanent member.
  • Washington’s reported threat to not veto the motion at the UN came shortly after a Politico report which said US President Barack Obama had rejected multiple calls by a top Democratic senator that he speak out publicly against a Palestinian statehood resolution at the United Nations. Obama’s refusal, the report said, “highlights how wide the gulf between the Obama administration and Israeli government has become.” The rebuff “unfolded in the context of a personal relationship between Obama and Netanyahu that’s become highly toxic, poisoning US-Israeli relations more widely.” In March, the administration signaled that it would reevaluate its automatic-veto policy at the UN, after Netanyahu asserted in a pre-election interview that there would be no Palestinian state during his tenure. “We are currently reevaluating our approach but it doesn’t mean that we’ve made a decision regarding changing our position at the UN,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said during a briefing at the time, responding to reports that the US was considering lifting its veto on UN Security Council resolutions toward Palestinian statehood.
  • Paul Merrell on 11 Oct 15
     
    True or false?
Paul Merrell

AIPAC's Annus Horribilis? by Jim Lobe -- Antiwar.com - 0 views

original.antiwar.com/...aipacs-annus-horribilis

war & peace Israel AIPAC Israel-lobby Iran Iranian-nukes-myth negotiations

shared by Paul Merrell on 14 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • The year of 2014 is starting well for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier organization of this country’s Israel lobby. Not only has it been clearly and increasingly decisively defeated – at least for now and the immediate future – in its bid to persuade a filibuster-proof, let alone a veto-proof, super-majority of senators to approve the Kirk-Menendez “Wag the Dog” Act that was designed to torpedo the Nov. 24 “Joint Plan of Action” (JPA) between Iran and the P5+1. It has also drawn a spate of remarkably unfavorable publicity, a particularly damaging development for an organization that, as one of its former top honchos, Steve Rosen, once put it, like “a night flower, … thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”
  • The result: AIPAC and its supporters hit a brick wall at 59, unable even to muster the 60 needed to invoke cloture against a possible filibuster, let alone the 77 senators that AIPAC-friendly Congressional staff claimed at one point were either publicly or privately committed to vote for the bill if it reached the floor. By late this week, half a dozen of the 16 Democrats who had co-sponsored the bill were retreating from it as fast as their senatorial dignity would permit. And while none has yet disavowed their co-sponsorship, more than a handful now have (disingenuously, in my view) insisted that they either don’t believe that the bill should be voted on while negotiations are ongoing; that they had never intended to undercut the president’s negotiating authority; or, most originally, that they believed the mere introduction of the bill would provide additional leverage to Obama (Michael Bennet of Colorado) in the negotiations. Even the bill’s strongest proponents, such as Oklahoma’s Jim Inhofe, conceded, as he did to the National Journal after Obama repeated his veto threat in his State of the Union Address Tuesday: “The question is, is there support to override a veto on that? I say, ‘No.’” The Democratic retreat is particularly worrisome for AIPAC precisely because its claim to “bipartisanship” is looking increasingly dubious, a point underlined by Peter Beinart in a Haaretz op-ed this week that urged Obama to boycott this year’s AIPAC policy conference that will take place a mere five weeks from now. (This is the nightmare scenario for Rosen who noted in an interview with the JTA’s Ron Kampeas last week that the group’s failure to procure a high-level administration speaker for its annual conference “would be devastating to AIPAC’s image of bipartisanship.”) According to Beinart:
  • Consider first what happened with the Kirk-Menendez sanctions bill, named for the two biggest beneficiaries of “pro-Israel” PACs closely associated with AIPAC in the Congressional campaigns of 2010 and 2012, respectively. Introduced on the eve of the Christmas recess, the bill then had 26 co-sponsors, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, giving it an attractive bipartisan cast – the kind of bipartisanship that AIPAC has long sought to maintain despite the group’s increasingly Likudist orientation and the growing disconnect within the Democratic Party between its strongly pro-Israel elected leadership and more skeptical base, especially its younger activists, both Jewish and gentile. By the second week of January, it had accumulated an additional 33 co-sponsors, bringing the total to 59 and theoretically well within striking distance of the magic 67 needed to override a presidential veto. At that point, however, its momentum stalled as a result of White House pressure (including warnings that a veto would indeed be cast); the alignment behind Obama of ten Senate Committee chairs, including Carl Levin of the Armed Services Committee and Dianne Feinstein of the Intelligence Committee; public denunciation of the bill by key members of the foreign policy elite; and a remarkably strong grassroots campaign by several reputable national religious, peace, and human-rights groups (including, not insignificantly, J Street and Americans for Peace Now), whose phone calls and emails to Senate offices opposing the bill outnumbered those in favor by a factor of ten or more.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Of course, none of this means that the battle over Iran policy is won, but it does suggest that AIPAC’s membership has some serious thinking to do about the group’s relationship to Democrats and to the broader Jewish community. Nor does it necessarily mean that we have finally reached a “tipping point” regarding the lobby’s hold over Congress and U.S. Middle East policy. But this is unquestionably a significant moment. (Rosenberg has a good analysis about AIPAC’s defeat out on HuffPo today that is well worth reading.)
  • Paul Merrell on 14 Feb 14
     
    There's more detail not quoted, but AIPAC (and the War Party) are indeed having a horrible year, already.  Perhaps worst of all for AIPAC, even mainstream media is now willing to discuss AIPAC's blunder. See e.g.,  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-state-of-the-union-iran_b_4702457.html ("AIPAC's hopes to override Obama's veto ended with a whimper, AIPAC's whimper.") When even mainstream pundits are willing to discuss AIPAC's blunder in public, that's a spotlight on an organism that can't stand the light. 
Paul Merrell

Russia used Veto to Block Security Council Resolution on No-Fly-Zone over Aleppo - nsnb... - 0 views

nsnbc.me/...ion-on-no-fly-zone-over-aleppo

war & peace U.S.-foreign-policy Syria Aleppo Russia France U.N. NATO

shared by Paul Merrell on 09 Oct 16 - No Cached
  • Russia, late Saturday, used its veto right at the UN Security Council (UNSC) to block a French-drafted resolution that called for the establishment of a no-fly-zone over Aleppo, Syria. The veto came after Russian-drafted amendments were rejected.
  • The French-drafted resolution would have banned airstrikes in Aleppo as well as flights of warplanes over the city where Islamist insurgents, most prominently among them Jabhat al-Nusrah, are trapped in a pocket in the eastern part of the city. Russia had tabled an amendment to the French-drafted resolution, supporting the proposals of UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura and the Syrian government. Both de Mistura and the government had guaranteed “rebels” to leave eastern Aleppo and to be transported to other “rebel-held areas”. In a passionate speech last week, de Mistura offered to personally escort the insurgents out of Aleppo. The Syrian government, for its part, offered an amnesty for foreign as well as for Syrian fighters. Foreign fighters could either chose to go to other rebel held areas or be granted safe passage out of Syria. Syrian fighters could also have free passage to other “rebel-held” areas or be granted a full amnesty. Following the rejection of the Russian-drafted amendment, Russia vetoed the resolution that would have imposed a no-fly-zone above sovereign Syrian territory. Eleven member countries of the UN Security Council voted for the resolution. Russia and Venezuela rejected it, and two more countries abstained.
  • Paul Merrell on 09 Oct 16
     
    France was undoubtedly carrying water for the U.S. on that draft resolution. The U.S. is desperate to save its surrounded Al-Nusrah forces in Aleppo, without giving up any ground. The U.S. has even threatened direct military intervention to save them. Problem: the U.S. voted for the U.N. Security Council Resolution that calls for the extermination of al-Nusrah and forbids *any* type of support for it. Now a draft resolution to protect the head-choppers? Russia did the right thing to exercise its veto power.
Paul Merrell

Senators To Override Obama's Iran Veto Eurasia Review - 1 views

www.eurasiareview.com/tors-override-obamas-iran-veto

war & peace Iran negotiations Iranian-nukes-myth Israel-lobby War-Party

shared by Paul Merrell on 22 Dec 13 - No Cached
  • Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated he would bring a new Iran sanctions bill for a vote. On Thursday, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) introduced a new sanctions bill against Iran which was co-sponsored by 24 other senators across the aisle. The White House was quick to condemn the new anti-Iran effort by the hawkish senators on Capitol Hill with Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney saying that the president would veto the bill “if it were to pass” Congress. However, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) told Fox News that he was seeking to secure a veto-proof majority of 67 senators for the bill. “If the president wants to veto [the bill], we’ll override his veto,” Graham said.
  • Iranian Foreign Minister and top nuclear negotiator Mohammad Javad Zarif have already warned that any new sanctions against Iran passed by US Congress would kill “the entire deal” reached between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the US, Britain, Russia, France and China — plus Germany on November 24.
  • Paul Merrell on 22 Dec 13
     
    Israel Lobby efforts continue to blow up the negotiations with Iran over Iran's mythical nuclear weapons program, thereby proving once again that their goal never was ending the non-existent weapons program but is instead meneuvering the U.S. into launching a war against Iran. 
Paul Merrell

Senate goes for 'nuclear option' - Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com - 0 views

www.politico.com/...eid-nuclear-option-100199.html

U.S. Senate rules filibuster appointments

shared by Paul Merrell on 22 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • The Senate approved a historic rules change on Thursday by eliminating the use of the filibuster on all presidential nominees except those to the U.S. Supreme Court.Invoking the long-threatened “nuclear option” means that most of President Barack Obama’s judicial and executive branch nominees no longer need to clear a 60-vote threshold to reach the Senate floor and get an up-or-down vote.
  • Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) used the nuclear option Thursday morning, meaning he called for a vote to change the Senate rules by a simple majority vote. It passed, 52 to 48. Three Democrats voted against changing the rules — Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. “It’s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete,” Reid said in a lengthy floor speech on Thursday morning. A furious Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who tried to recess the Senate for the day before the rules change could get a vote, said after the minority’s power was limited by Democrats: “I don’t think this is a time to be talking about reprisal. I think it’s a time to be sad about what has been done to the United States Senate.”
  • The debate over the filibuster — and specifically its use on D.C. Circuit nominees — has been raging for nearly a decade, stretching back to when George W. Bush was president and Democrats were in the minority. But changing the Senate rules has always been avoided through a piecemeal deal, a gentleman’s agreement or a specific solution, not a historic change to the very fabric of the Senate.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • But since Obama’s nomination, the “nuclear option” has reared its head three times in less than a year — each time getting closer to the edge. Many in the Senate privately expected that this go-round would be yet another example of saber rattling, but Reid said pressure was increasing within his own party to change the rules. The blockade of three consecutive nominees to a powerful appellate court was too much for Democrats to handle — and Reid felt compelled to pull the trigger, explaining that “this is the way it has to be.”
  • Senate Democrats were quick to use their newfound powers, voting in the early afternoon to end the filibuster on Patricia Millett’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The vote was 55-43, with two senators voting present. Before the change earlier Thursday, Millett would have needed 60 votes to clear the procedural hurdle and move on to a confirmation vote. But now, she needed just 51 to advance.
  • Paul Merrell on 22 Nov 13
     
    The Senate's filibuster rule, particularly since abandonment of the requirement that the filibustering Senator must keep talking so long as the filibuster continues, has seemed more and more an anachronism to me as I age. Its use to indefinitely block an up or down vote on a legislative measure -- in essence granting each Senator veto power over proposed measures seems fundamentally at odds with democratic principles to me. Certainly during my lifetime, the filibuster rule has been abused by both major parties, transforming a mere rule of procedure into an individual veto power nowhere set forth in the Constitution, in effect requiring a 60 per cent super-majority to pass a controversial measure. The Constitution is not silent on the subject of super-majorities in the Senate, specifying a super-majority to override a presidential veto and to remove a federal official from office by impeachment. Therefore, one might argue that the Founders knew how to write a super-majority requirement but did not see fit to require a supermajority to close debate and bring a measure to a vote. In other words, I favor abolishing the filibuster rule entirely and making "the nuclear option" standard procedure except where the Constitution establishes a super-majority requirement. To me it is not important that this limitation of the filibuster rule occurred when the Democrats had the majority in the Senate; whenever it were to happen, some party would be in the minority. And I do not believe that the People of this nation will be disadvantaged by up or down votes on Senate measures.  Now can we please get rid of the filibuster rule entirely?
Paul Merrell

Beltway Foreign Policy Groups to Congress: Stay Out of the Way on Iran! « Lob... - 0 views

www.lobelog.com/ss-stay-out-of-the-way-on-iran

war & peace Iranian-nukes-myth negotiations Congress Obama

shared by Paul Merrell on 26 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • The November 24 deadline for Iran and world powers to reach an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program is quickly approaching.
  • If there is a deal on Nov. 24, the White House indicated, in an article authored by David E. Sanger in Sunday’s New York Times, that it would not seek an immediate vote on the agreement or sanctions relief, instead asserting that the administration can, and may need to, roll back some sanctions unilaterally as part of immediate sanctions relief guarantees in a possible agreement. Hawks in Congress may want to portray their position as representing the mainstream consensus but a letter signed by thirty-seven organizations and sent to members of Congress on Thursday offers some indication that many foreign policy groups in the beltway are concerned by Congress’ latest effort to meddle in the final weeks of sensitive diplomacy before the November deadline. The signatories—which include the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; J Street; MoveOn.org; the National Iranian American Council; Progressive Democrats of America; the United Methodist Church and VoteVets— expressed “deep concern with inaccurate and counterproductive rhetoric from a handful of Members of Congress regarding possible outcomes of the current negotiations.”
  • They continue: Particularly irresponsible are threats to oppose any comprehensive agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program that initially suspends US sanctions on Iran through lawful executive action. Congress’ authorization of the President’s power to suspend and re-impose US sanctions on Iran is clear and unmistakable in each piece of legislation it has passed on the subject. Use of these provisions by the President to implement the initial phase of an agreement that ensures Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon would reflect an affirmation, not a subversion, of Congress’ will. The echo chamber on Capitol Hill may give members of the House and Senate the impression that only the threat of military action or crushing sanctions are effective tools in bringing Iran to the negotiating table. (My colleague Ali Gharib and I discussed the disproportionate voice given to individuals from neoconservative organizations at congressional hearings on Iran in a July article in The Nation.)
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • But the letter sent out on Thursday might give some congressional Democrats pause. Congress may lean hawkish but progressive groups in the beltway are throwing their weight behind the White House’s efforts to reach a diplomatic agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and are urging Congress to stay out of the way.
  • Paul Merrell on 26 Oct 14
     
    There's more behind this story than appears in its words. "Progressive" organizations have largely stood silent on the topic of war since Obama was elected because they are Obama fans and Obama has been anything but peaceful. But now they turn out because Obama needs Congress to stay out of the Iran situation until negotiations are complete and for some time afterward. The pressure on Congress to intervene is coming from the Israel Lobby. Keep in mind that it's been the consensus position of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies for many years that Iran has no plans to create a nuclear weapon capability. Several Israeli intelligence and military leaders have said the same thing. The Iranian nukes myth is a propaganda theme of the ultra-right wing Israeli government leadership that has been used for several years in efforts to persuade the U.S. to invade Iran and bomb it back into the Stone Age. And their excuse for involving the U.S. military evaporates if the Obama Administration successfully negotiates an agreement with Iran that limits its lawful development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes that will safeguard from any change of mind in Iran on development of nuclear weapons via, e.g., production limits and on-site inspections. The counter-argument is that such an agreement would have to be ratified by the Senate on grounds that it would be a treaty. But that argument falls short of the mark because: [i] the Executive has always had the unfettered right to negotiate and sign treaties; [ii] the U.S. government is not bound by treaties unless and until the Senate ratifies the treaty; and [iii] Congress already explicitly gave Obama authority to impose and suspend economic sanctions at his discretion. Meanwhile, part of the interim agreement with Iran so that negotiations can take place is a promise by the Obama Administration that it would veto any legislation imposing further sanctions on Iran during the period of negotiation. Because of the Israel Lobby'
Gary Edwards

The Lawless President - 0 views

spectator.org/...the-lawless-president

ObamaCare Impeachment articles-of-impeachment Impeach-Obama

shared by Gary Edwards on 10 Jul 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 10 Jul 13
     
    Excellent read!  Peter Ferrara walks us through the latest Obama assault on the Constitution, this time his refusal to enforce laws he disagrees with.  Surprisingly, this now includes the employer mandate portion of ObamaCare!!!  Why he has to do this however is a stunning story. Bottom line:  The latest jobs report has the economy producing 195,000 new jobs in the past quarter.  The problem is, 100% of these new jobs are part-time.  Thanks to ObamaCare.   "The duties of the President of the United States are spelled out in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states, inter alia, that the President "shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed." As Stanford Law Professor and former federal judge Michael McConnell explained in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, "This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so." Section 1513(d) of the Unaffordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare") states unequivocally, "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013." In other words, the provisions of Obamacare become fully effective in 2014, as a matter of duly enacted federal law. But over the long Fourth of July weekend, in a "Never Mind" moment, the Obama Administration announced, through a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, that contrary to federal law, the employer mandate of Obamacare shall not become fully effective in months beginning after December 31, 2013, but only in months beginning after December 31, 2014. Making the announcement through such a low level Administration official to me says that Obama has contempt for the American people, and for the rule of law. Barack Obama: Lawbreaker But it does not matter who announces it. The President is the one responsible. And the announcement constitutes the assumption of authoritarian powers by President Obama. McCo
Gary Edwards

A First Look at the Book "The Liberty Amendments", by Mark Levin - Tea Party Command Ce... - 0 views

teapartyorg.ning.com/...show

Liberty-Amendments

shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Aug 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 15 Aug 13
     
    Excellent youtube interview! "Mark Levin has just published his much-anticipated book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. Three of his eleven proposed Constitutional amendments appear below, and a Sean Hannity interview of Levin appears at the bottom of this post. Levin's book is centered around the Constitution's Article V (aka "Article 5″). That article specifies two methods for amending the Constitution. Just briefly - In the first method of creating amendments, Congress proposes and the States dispose. In the second method of creating amendments, the States propose and the States dispose. The second method has never been used successfully, although there have been many attempts.  It is that second method that the Founders provided as a remedy for an overreaching federal government. In the second method, neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Supreme Court have any voting or veto authority whatsoever.  The states are in full control. Period. It is, by design, the ultimate override for an over-spending, over-taxing, over-regulating, and increasingly dictatorial and lawless federal government. Clearly, its time has come. In that second method, Congress has at most a mere ministerial role.  Of course Congress is very protective of its power, and could, through delay and inaction, attempt to convert their mere ministerial role into a de facto veto power, halting any attempt for a state-driven amendment action. Apparently Congress has done exactly that many times, acting in bad faith and contrary to the Framers' spirit and intent for Article V which is clearly expressed in the Federalist Papers. Legal scholars have been trying to find a way around the federal government's intransigence, so far with little success. Now more than ever, it is time for We the People to bring the power of Article V to the center ring of American politics. That starts with awareness, and Levin's book will br
Paul Merrell

Pelosi says Iran deal has the votes, and Podhoretz urges Israel to attack Iran - Mondow... - 0 views

mondoweiss.net/...pelosi-podhoretz-israel

war & peace Iranian-nukes-myth Iran-negotiations Congress Pelosi

shared by Paul Merrell on 02 Aug 15 - No Cached
  •      House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is “confident” that the House would be able to uphold the president’s veto of a potential Republican-backed bill to kill the deal. “More and more of them have confirmed to me that they will be there to sustain the veto,” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference, referring to members of the Democratic caucus. “They’ve done this not blindly but thoroughly,” as they examined the agreement over recent weeks.
  • House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is “confident” that the House would be able to uphold the president’s veto of a potential Republican-backed bill to kill the deal. “More and more of them have confirmed to me that they will be there to sustain the veto,” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference, referring to members of the Democratic caucus. “They’ve done this not blindly but thoroughly,” as they examined the agreement over recent weeks.
  • The fear among major Jewish organizations that they will be drawn into the domestic U.S. political fray over the nuclear deal is prominent in statements released by both the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Both organizations have refrained from strongly attacking the nuclear agreement and defining it as a disaster, instead leading the public to believe that they instead have misgivings over large parts of the agreement, and that they hope that Congress will review it in depth. The U.S. Reform movement, too, issued a convoluted statement that fell short of taking a decisive stance on the agreement. Norman Podhoretz has never had this problem. He became a neoconservative because he wanted a big U.S. military budget to support Israel. Now he sees the writing on the wall and calls for an Israeli attack on Iran, in Wall Street Journal: I remain convinced that containment is impossible, from which it follows that the two choices before us are not war vs. containment but a conventional war now or a nuclear war later.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Israelis are waking up to their abandonment by the majority of US Jewry. Sort of the anti-67 War. Haaretz says the lobby is in crisis. Boldface mine: Israel’s consul general in Philadelphia, Yaron Sideman, warned Jerusalem this week that the American Jewish community is divided over the nuclear agreement with Iran, and does not stand united behind Israel in the controversy. The problem is that Israel has burned up its influence over the White House, and US Jews don’t want to be exposed as Israel supporters: a CEO of one of the Jewish federations in the Philadelphia region told [Sideman] that in his view, Israel’s status vis-à-vis the Obama administration is at a low point, which could adversely affect the Jewish community. He cited the Jewish leader telling him, “In the next year and a half (until the end of President Barack Obama’s term) Israel’s and the Jewish communities’ maneuvering space regarding advancing Israel’s interests is extremely limited to non existent.” Even those who oppose the deal are reluctant to come forward because they will be seen to be advancing Israel’s interest over the U.S. interest. Nice play, Netanyahu.
  • Given how very unlikely it is that President Obama, despite his all-options-on-the-table protestations to the contrary, would ever take military action, the only hope rests with Israel. If, then, Israel fails to strike now, Iran will get the bomb. And when it does, the Israelis will be forced to decide whether to wait for a nuclear attack and then to retaliate out of the rubble, or to pre-empt with a nuclear strike of their own. But the Iranians will be faced with the same dilemma. Under these unprecedentedly hair-trigger circumstances, it will take no time before one of them tries to beat the other to the punch. And so my counsel to proponents of the new consensus is to consider the unspeakable horrors that would then be visited not just on Israel and Iran but on the entire region and beyond. The destruction would be far worse than any imaginable consequences of an Israeli conventional strike today when there is still a chance to put at least a temporary halt, and conceivably even a permanent one, to the relentless Iranian quest for the bomb
  • Oh and here is the ultimate chutzpah, right up there with killing your parents and asking for a light sentence because you’re an orphan. In a call to Israel supporters, Bret Stephens says that lawmakers should kill the Iran deal because if they support it, it will haunt them the same way voting for the Iraq war has haunted them. Stephens pushed that disastrous war. Oh and Stephens threatens their financial contributions, too. Glenn Greenwald has the clip:
Paul Merrell

Israel decries US 'knife in back' over Palestinian govt - Yahoo News - 0 views

news.yahoo.com/alestinian-govt-210018880.html

war & peace Israel Palestine Kerry Obama Netanyahu negotiations

shared by Paul Merrell on 05 Jun 14 - No Cached
  • Washington's support for a new Palestinian government backed by Israel's Islamist foe Hamas, has left the Jewish state feeling betrayed, triggering a new crisis with its closest ally. Several Israeli ministers expressed public anger on Tuesday after the US State Department said it was willing to work with the new Palestinian unity government put together by the West Bank leadership and Gaza's Hamas rulers. Technocratic in nature, the new government was sworn in on Monday in front of president Mahmud Abbas, with Washington offering its backing several hours later.
  • Speaking to reporters on Monday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the new cabinet would be judged "by its actions.""At this point, it appears that president Abbas has formed an interim technocratic government that does not include ministers affiliated with Hamas," she said. "With what we know now, we will work with this government."
  • The US endorsement was viewed as a major blow for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had on Sunday urged the international community not to rush into recognising the new government, which he said would only "strengthen terror."
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • "Unfortunately, American naivety has broken all records," said Communications Minister Gilad Erdan, a cabinet hardliner who is close to Netanyahu."Collaborating with Hamas, which is defined as a terror organisation in the United States, is simply unthinkable. "US capitulation to Palestinian tactics badly damages the chance of ever returning to negotiations and will cause Israel to take unilateral steps to defend its citizens from the government of terror which Abu Mazen (Abbas) has set up." Public radio said Netanyahu was feeling "betrayed and deceived," particularly as he had assured his security cabinet that US Secretary of State John Kerry had promised him Washington would not recognise the new government immediately.
  • "And it wasn't immediate -- it was five hours later that this recognition took place," the radio noted ironically. A senior political official quoted by the Israel Hayom freesheet, widely regarded as Netanyahu's mouthpiece, said the US move was "like a knife in the back." - 'Answer with annexation' - Israeli commentators said the Palestinians had chalked up a "major success" in driving a new wedge between Israel and its US ally.
  • With the peace process in tatters, hardliners within Netanyahu's rightwing coalition have been pushing for Israel to take unilateral steps such as the annexation of the main Jewish settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank.
  • The security cabinet agreed on Monday to set up a team to examine the annexation option, but Yediot Aharonot commentator Shimon Shiffer said the move was a sop to Bennett and other hardliners rather than a serious policy change.
  • Paul Merrell on 05 Jun 14
     
    What's remarkable here is that Obama has apparently ratcheted down his fear of the Israel Lobby. But it's not as though Mr. Netanyahu was not warned that the world would see Israel as responsible if it blew up the Kerry-brokered negotiation between Israel and Palestine. Israel did blow it up by not delivering the last shipment of Palestinian prisoners required by the pre-negotiation agreement, attempting to gain further concessions using their release as leverage.  Palestine responded by joining a large number of U.N. treaty organizations and was thus recognized by most nations on the planet as a nation: a critically important move, because it is recognition by other nations as a nation that qualifies Palestine as a full-fledged U.N. member rather than an observer state, an application Palestine can now make at the time of its choosing. That is also important because Palestine is now positioned to join the Rome Convention that created the International Criminal Court, providing Palestine with legal standing to file war crime charges against high Israeli officials that would then obligate the Court to investigate. Palestine is holding back on that move, using it as bargaining leverage on the world stage.   Palestine also responded by forming a coalition "unity" government with Hamas, the political party that nominally rules the Gaza strip, the world's largest open-air concentration camp. At Israel's request, the U.S. had several years ago designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. But that was a purely political move. It seems that the political situation has changed. Obama is pivoting out of the Mideast as he performs his ballyhooed "pivot to Asia," which is actually a pivot to contain Russia that isn't working and a pivot to subjugate Africa and its huge store of untapped natural resources, including lots of oil. Blocking China's economic deals in Africa with military force seems to be the current top concern in the White House. Israel was already a pari
Paul Merrell

Netanyahu 'spat in our face,' White House officials said to say | The Times of Israel - 0 views

www.timesofisrael.com/face-white-house-officials-say

war & peace corruption Netanyahu AIPAC Congress Boehner

shared by Paul Merrell on 24 Jan 15 - No Cached
  • he White House’s outrage over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to speak before Congress in March — a move he failed to coordinate with the administration — began to seep through the diplomatic cracks on Friday, with officials telling Haaretz the Israeli leader had “spat” in President Barack Obama’s face.
  • “We thought we’ve seen everything,” the newspaper quoted an unnamed senior US official as saying. “But Bibi managed to surprise even us.
  • “There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price,” he said. Officials in Washington said that the “chickenshit” epithet — with which an anonymous administration official branded Netanyahu several months ago — was mild compared to the language used in the White House when news of Netanyahu’s planned speech came in. In his address the Israeli leader is expected to speak about stalled US-led nuclear negotiations with Iran, and to urge lawmakers to slap Tehran with a new round of tougher sanctions in order to force it to comply with international demands. The Mossad intelligence service on Thursday went to the rare length of issuing a press statement to deny claims, cited by Kerry, that its chief Tamir Pardo had told visiting US politicians that he opposed further sanctions.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • The Washington Post reported that Netanyahu’s apparent disrespect for the US leadership was particularly offensive to Secretary of State John Kerry, who over the past month had made frenzied efforts on Israel’s behalf on the world stage — making dozens of calls to world leaders to convince them to oppose a UN Security Council resolution which would have set a timeframe for the establishment of a Palestinian state. “The secretary’s patience is not infinite,” a source close to Kerry told the Post. “The bilateral relationship is unshakable. But playing politics with that relationship could blunt Secretary Kerry’s enthusiasm for being Israel’s primary defender.”
  • Israel is scheduled to hold elections on March 17. Netanyahu confirmed Thursday that he would address Congress in early March. He was initially slated to speak on February 11, but changed the date so he could attend the AIPAC conference.
  • “I look forward to the opportunity to express before the joint session Israel’s vision for a joint effort to deal with [Islamist terrorism and Iran’s nuclear program], and to emphasize Israel’s commitment to the special bond between our two democracies,” Netanyahu said, according to the statement.
  • Paul Merrell on 24 Jan 15
     
    Netanyahu is getting pounded in the Israeli press for offending Obama. It is hihgly significant that Netanyahu changed the date for his speech to Congress to coincide with the annual AIPAC conference.  During the AIPAC conference, hundreds of Isarel-firsters descend on Washington, D.C., get their marching orders and scripts, and fan out to descend on the offices of members of Congress. Then nearly all members of Congress will reciprocate by attending Netanyahu's speech to the AIPAC conference and giving him many standing ovations as he addresses the joint session of Congress. (24 standing ovations on his last speech to Congress). It is a sickening display of disloyalty to America but you don't get to stay in Congress if you speak out against AIPAC because AIPAC will arrange for your opponent in the next election to get very big bucks and you will be subjected to merciless rumor warfare.   But in any event, this will be an all-out effort to get Congress to enact more sanctions against Iran. Netanyu's goal will be a veto proof super-majority. If he gets that and Congress overrides Obama's veto, that will be the end of the negotiations with Iran. And Netanyahu's read is that if he can take credit for scuttling the Iran negotations, that will translate into votes in the Israeli election scheduled for two weeks after his speech to Congress. 
Paul Merrell

Congress thwarts Obama on bill allowing 9/11 lawsuits against Saudi Arabia - The Washin... - 0 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html

war & peace 9-11 legislation foreign-immunity JASTA

shared by Paul Merrell on 29 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • Congress voted to decisively overturn President Obama’s veto of a controversial 9/11 victims bill Wednesday, the first override of his presidency and a sharp setback for longtime U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. The bill clears the way for families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to file claims against Saudi Arabia for the kingdom’s long-rumored but unproven links to the 9/11 attackers. The Saudi government has consistently rejected those allegations. The overwhelming vote to override — 97 to 1 in the Senate and 348 to 77 in the House — reflects the extent to which Saudi influence in Washington has waned. And it comes just over a month before an election that makes it nearly impossible politically to oppose legislation long sought by thousands of aggrieved American families.
  • The measure amended the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow for lawsuits against foreign nations in federal court if it is determined that they played a role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on U.S. soil.
  • Paul Merrell on 29 Sep 16
     
    Note that the legislation applies to all foreign nations, not just the Saudis, and that it covers all acts of terrorism on American soil. Perhaps the lawsuits against Israel for 9-11 will now begin to roll? Defense Secretary Ash Carter said just before Congress overrode the veto that the legislation would endanger U.S. secrets. Yup. Mossad's 9-11 co-conspirators in U.S. government might also be flushed out in such legislation. On Carter's statements, see http://www.mintpressnews.com/defense-secretary-says-jasta-would-lead-to-public-disclosure-of-american-secrets/220912/
Paul Merrell

Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto on 9/11 Victims Bill - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...veto-on-9-11-victims-bill.html

war & peace 9-11 legislation foreign-immunity JASTA

shared by Paul Merrell on 29 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot.
  • The White House and some lawmakers were already plotting how they could weaken the law in the near future, although there was general pessimism on Wednesday that Congress would agree to any changes.
  • The law allows families of the Sept. 11 victims to alter lawsuits already underway — or file new suits — to directly sue Saudi Arabia and to demand documents and other evidence. It amends a 1976 law that grants foreign countries broad immunity from American lawsuits. Now nations can be sued in federal court if they are found to have played any role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on United States soil.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • As Mr. Vladeck noted, a little-discussed provision of the bill allows the attorney general to intervene in the lawsuits and get a judge to stay any settlement as long as there are continuing discussions with the Saudis about a possible resolution.
  • The provision was added earlier this year to soften the legislation — preserving the executive branch’s purview over foreign policy while still giving family members a path to sue.But the prospects of such discussions ever beginning are uncertain. The Saudi government has long denied any role in the Sept. 11 plot, and any negotiation with the United States could be viewed as acknowledging culpability. Advertisement Continue reading the main story At the same time, lawyers for the families will no doubt push for judges to carefully scrutinize any attempt by the attorney general to delay court proceedings.“The families would of course expect that in the event the provision is invoked, that the courts exercise their inherent authority to assure good faith negotiations are in fact taking place and that the courts not simply rubber stamp executive branch requests for delay in resolution of their claims,” said Allan Gerson, who is part of a team representing many of the Sept. 11 families.
Paul Merrell

White House threatens to veto 9/11 lawsuit bill - CNNPolitics.com - 0 views

edition.cnn.com/...index.html

war & peace 9-11 Saudis legislation sovereign-immunity litigation

shared by Paul Merrell on 20 Apr 16 - No Cached
  • A bipartisan bill to let families victimized by the 9/11 terrorist attacks sue Saudi Arabia ran into sharp setbacks Monday, as the White House threatened a veto and a GOP senator privately sought to block the measure.The move comes as presidential candidates from both parties are seizing on the legislation to score points with New York voters ahead of Tuesday's critical primary there.And it has pit the likely next Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, squarely against the Obama administration.The White House and State Department are bluntly warning lawmakers not to proceed with the legislation over fears it could have dramatic ramifications for the United States and citizens living abroad to retaliatory lawsuits. The President lands in Riyadh Wednesday for talks with Saudi Arabia over ISIS and Iran at a time of strained relations between the countries, making the bill's timing that much more sensitive.
  • The stepped-up lobbying against the legislation comes as it is coming up against fresh roadblocks on Capitol Hill, with party leaders learning that a GOP senator is objecting to taking up the bill, according to a source familiar with the legislation. The senator's identity has not yet been revealed publicly.Proponents of the measure, for their part, are beginning to intensify their pressure campaign."If Saudi Arabia participated in terrorism, of course they should be able to be sued," Schumer said Monday. "This bill would allow a suit to go forward and victims of terrorism to go to court to determine if the Saudi government participated in terrorist acts. If the Saudis did, they should pay a price."Speaking to reporters Monday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest fired back, warning that it would jeopardize international sovereignty and put the U.S. at "significant risk" if other countries adopted a similar law."It's difficult to imagine a scenario where the President would sign it," Earnest said.
  • The bill, which Schumer and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas are pushing, would prevent Saudi Arabia and other countries alleged to have terrorist ties from invoking their sovereign immunity in federal court.Saudi Arabia has long denied any role in the 9/11 attacks, but victims' families have repeatedly sought to bring the matter to court, only to be rebuffed after the country has invoked legal immunity allowed under current law."It makes minor adjustments to our laws that would clarify the ability of Americans attacked on U.S. soil to get justice from those who have sponsored that terrorist attack," Cornyn said of the bill, which is entitled the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • As pressure grows on Congress to let 9/11 victims' families pursue their claims against Saudi Arabia in federal court, Saudi officials are quickly pushing back.In a stark warning to members of Congress, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir warned lawmakers last month in Washington that his kingdom would sell $750 billion in U.S. assets, including treasury securities, if the measure became law, sources familiar with the matter told CNN. The development was first reported in The New York Times.Cornyn, however, dismissed the threat.
  • Presidential candidates were also unmoved. Ahead of the New York primary, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders quickly sought to align themselves with the Cornyn-Schumer bill.After Clinton said in a Sunday appearance on ABC that she had to study the bill and would not take a position, a spokesman later said she backs the bill.Sanders, in a statement Sunday night, announced that he supports the bill and called on the Obama administration to declassify the 28 pages of the 9/11 report that could implicate Saudi Arabia. Other presidential candidates jumped into the fray, including GOP front-runner Donald Trump.Appearing on the Joe Piscopo Show, a New York radio program, Trump evinced no concern about Saudi Arabia's threat to sell off U.S. assets."Let 'em sell 'em," Trump said. "No big deal."Trump added: "Hey, look, we protect Saudi Arabia. We protect them for peanuts. If we weren't protecting them, they wouldn't be there for a week."
  • Paul Merrell on 20 Apr 16
     
    Sounds like the bill would also open the doors to suing Israel for 9-11. Could be interesting because that's where much of the evidence points, incliding the all important answer to the question, qui bono (who benefits).  
Paul Merrell

150 House Democrats Bolster Obama's Position on Iran Deal « LobeLog - 0 views

www.lobelog.com/r-obamas-position-on-iran-deal

war & peace Iranian-nukes-myth U.S.-foreign-policy Congress

shared by Paul Merrell on 08 May 15 - No Cached
  • Thursday’s release of a letter signed by 150 House Democrats makes it significantly more likely that a nuclear deal negotiated between the P5+1 and Iran will survive a congressional challenge. The letter, an initiative of Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), and David Price (D-NC), expresses strong support for Obama’s efforts to conclude an agreement. It has been quietly circulating on Capitol Hill for several weeks and was made public only when 150 lawmakers signed it—several more than needed to sustain an Obama veto of legislation disapproving a deal with Iran. (As most readers of this blog know, overriding a presidential veto requires that at least two-thirds of the membership of each house of Congress vote to do so.) The Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent explained the letter’s implications on his Plum Line blog this morning, and there’s no need for me to repeat what he wrote when you can follow the link. But he made one very good point that deserves attention: “…[T]he goal of the letter isn’t just to signal that a veto would likely be sustained. It’s also meant to signal that there is more Congressional support than expected for the negotiations in order to help along the talks.” The letter is also likely to give Iranian negotiators more confidence that a final deal signed by the U.S. will not be overturned by Congress.
  • The letter is likely to get much less media attention than the Senate’s approval on Thursday of the Corker-Cardin bill without any substantial amendment. If also passed by the House and signed into law by Obama, the legislation will permit Congress to review and potentially block a final deal within 30 days of its submission by the administration. The final vote was 98-1. The lone dissenter was, predictably, Tom Cotton (R-AR), who is quickly establishing himself as the Republicans’ foreign-policy enfant terrible. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), one of the administration’s closest allies on Iran, did not vote.
Paul Merrell

Secret Israeli Report Sees Rift With Europe Growing - J.J. Goldberg - Forward.com - 0 views

blogs.forward.com/...t-sees-rift-with-europe-growin

war & peace Israel Europe leaked-docs

shared by Paul Merrell on 21 Jan 15 - No Cached
  • A classified Israeli foreign ministry document, leaked to the daily Yediot Ahronot, warns that 2015 will see Israel’s standing on the world stage steadily deteriorating. It predicts “worsening drift in Europe toward Palestinian positions, more parliaments recognizing the State of Palestine, fear of sanctions and labeling merchandise [to separate settlement products from tariff-free Israel-proper products] and no certainty that the United States will continue after Israel’s March elections to protect Israel with its veto.” The document is said to be a summary of an interministerial assessment roundtable convened by foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, and is signed by foreign ministry deputy director-general Gilead Cohen. It was circulated to Israel’s ambassadors around the world, Yediot reported. In addition to labeling settlement products and parliamentary votes to recognize Palestine, the foreign ministry document warns of European nations halting the supply of replacement parts for Israeli equipment and demanding compensation for damage caused by Israel to European projects in the territories.
  • “The Europeans are creating a clear link between political and economic relations, and in this context it should be remembered that Europe is Israel’s main trading partner.” European diplomats and politicians increasingly view Israel as responsible for the failure of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, claiming that Israel sets unreasonable conditions for a peace agreement in order to continue deepening its hold on the West Bank.
  • The tensions surrounding Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to Paris this week are an outgrowth of that growing gulf of suspicion. As Haaretz diplomatic correspondents Barak Ravid and Asher Schechter both reported, French president Francois Hollande initially asked Netanyahu not to come to Paris for the Sunday solidarity rally, because he wanted to avoid injecting the divisive Israeli-Palestinian issue into the rally’s theme of national and Europe-wide unity and solidarity. Once Netanyahu announced that he was coming, Hollande made clear to him that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas would be invited as well. Netanyahu has said repeatedly since last week’s Paris attacks, in his initial sympathy statement and again in his remarks Monday at the site of the kosher supermarket attack, that the terror plaguing Europe is the same as the terror Israel faces. He said he hoped Europe would “wake up in time” to the terrorist threat. He continued: “Israel supports Europe in its fight against terrorism and it’s time Europe supported Israel in the same fight.” His comments have caused resentment in France. Like most of Europe, French leaders regard Israel’s conflict with Arab terrorists as fundamentally different from the jihadist terrorism spreading from Syria to the European continent. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seen as a territorial dispute, albeit with religious overtones where Hamas is concerned, while Al Qaeda and ISIS are seen as essentially nihilistic movements that seek to undermine Western civilization.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • As for “waking up” to the terrorist threat, French observers note that they are carrying the fight against Al Qaeda in Mali on their own, had one of the largest NATO troop contingents fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and maintain what’s considered one of the best counter-terrorism intelligence operations in the West. In effect, Netanyahu’s call for Europe to “wake up” and “support Israel” in its struggle against terrorism is seen as a demand that Europe acquiesce in his effort to entrench Israeli presence in the territories, rather than withdrawing and permitting a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 lines.
  • Paul Merrell on 21 Jan 15
     
    " ... no certainty that the United States will continue after Israel's March elections to protect Israel with its veto." That would seem to indicate that the Obama Administration is doing some very tough talking to Israeli government officials behind the scenes. But I doubt that Obama would have the U.S. abstain or vote in favor of a Security Council Resolution condemning Israel unless it was on a matter that would inflicit little actual pain on the Israeli government. In that scenario, Kerry could claim plausibly that the U.S. abstention or vote in favor was a "message" to Israeli gobvernment to get serious about making the two-state solution happen. But I have to admit it would warm my heart to see a Security Council Resolution adopted authorizing the use of force to break the Gaza siege and to push Israeli troops and its settlers back to the 1967 borders.  
Paul Merrell

AL tabled UNSC Resolution on the Middle East likely to fail absent a US-U-Turn | nsnbc ... - 0 views

nsnbc.me/...ely-to-fail-absent-a-us-u-turn

Arab-League Palestine Gholan-Heights Sheba-Farms UNSC-Resolution

shared by Paul Merrell on 11 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • The Arab League announced that it would re-table a draft resolution at the UN Security Council on Monday, calling for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories including the occupied Syrian Golan and the Lebanese Sheba Farms. The Arab League’s draft resolution calls for a full Israeli withdrawal from all of the territories Israel occupied during the 1967 war. That is, Palestinian territories including East Jerusalem, the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan as well as the Israeli occupied, Lebanese Sheba Farms area in southeastern Lebanon.
  • The Arab League perceives the draft resolution as part of a policy based on the notion that a resolution of the Israel – Palestinian conflict only can be found within the framework of a comprehensive resolution that includes other issues which arose as a consequence to the 1967 war. In December 2014 the UN Security Council rejected a similar, Jordanian-sponsored draft resolution that called for a full Israeli withdrawal within two years. The resolution was endorsed by eight concurrent votes, falling one vote short of the minimum of nine votes. Had the resolution received the necessary nine votes, stated the U.S. State Department, the United States would have made use of its veto right at the Security Council. It were the victors of WWII who “endowed themselves” with the veto right, practically subjugating all other UN member States to the political will of the permanent UN Security Council members.
  • The rejection of the draft resolution, in December, prompted the President of the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority to accede to some 20 international treaties, including the Rome Statute. On April 1, Palestine will become a member to the United Nations’s International Criminal Court (ICC). Neither the U.S., Russia, China or Israel have made their citizens subject to prosecution by the ICC.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Al-Khadoumi points out that Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in 2013, stated that “Israel and the Golan are part and parcel” and that the “international community” should settle the question about sovereignty over the Golan within the framework of an Israel – Palestinian agreement. Besides open announcements about plans to permanently annex the Syrian Golan, Israel has been supporting Jabhat al-Nusrah and other al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood(FSA and co.) brigades via the Golan since 2012. In 2013 Israel’s covert support of the insurgents was leaked to the press by an Austrian UNDOF officer. By February 2014 the administration of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu launched a PR campaign to sell the support of the Islamist mercenary brigades under “humanitarian cover”. (see video)
  • By October 2014 Israel’s direct cooperation and State sponsorship of Jabhat al-Nusrah, the so-called Free Syrian Army and other mercenary brigades resulted in the withdrawal of UNDOF troops from a 12 – 16 km wide corridor in the buffer zone. (see UNDOF map above) The withdrawal has since then facilitated the direct interaction between Israeli military and intelligence and the foreign-backed mercenaries, using the Golan Heights as well as the Israeli occupied, Lebanese Sheba Farms area as launching pads for transgressions against Syria and Lebanon. Absent a U-turn in U.S. policy with regard to Israel and Syria, notes Al-Khadoumi, it is highly implausible that the re-drafted Security Council resolution will pass, or that it won’t be vetoed by the United States.
  • Paul Merrell on 11 Mar 15
     
    There is a possibility that the U.S. may abstain from voting and allow the resolution to pass. The Obama Administration was considering such a move even before the flap over Netanyahu's speech to Congress because of Israel's refusal to negotiate in good faith for a 2-state solution. And if ever there was a situation crying out for a smackdown of Israeli government, it was Netanyahu's speech.   
1 - 20 of 109 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page