"Palestine" and the ICC - Reuven Berko

by Reuven Berko

If its operational wing, the Palestinian Authority, manages to penetrate the international legal network, sign the Rome Convention and bring Israel to trial for its activities in the Gaza Strip, senior PLO and Palestinian Authority figures will immediately find themselves in the ICC accused of their own crimes.

"Filistin"

The Palestinian Authority's latest unilateral attempt to gain recognition as a state without negotiating any concessions failed Tuesday. But other mischief remains in play, including Wednesday's move to join the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Earlier this month, "Palestine" was upgraded from "observer entity" to "observer state" at the ICC. It was another milestone on the Palestinian Authority's road to international recognition as a state without having to negotiate directly with Israel, make any concessions, or commit to a genuine dialogue for peace, a unilateral stem directly violating both the Oslo Accords and UN Resolution 242. Countries supporting the move know – but are apathetic to the fact – that their actions only reinforce the PA's intransigence and destroy any motivation the Palestinians might have had to compromise on any issue that would bring about a just peace for both sides.

The Palestinian Authority's dream to try Israel in the ICC for so-called "war crimes" in the Gaza Strip is the height of absurdity. The PLO won international recognition after it claimed to have abandoned terrorism against Israel. If its operational wing, the Palestinian Authority, manages to penetrate the international legal network, sign the Rome Convention and bring Israel to trial for its activities in the Gaza Strip, senior PLO and Palestinian Authority figures will immediately find themselves in the ICC accused of their own crimes.

The Palestinian national consensus government, with Rami Hamdallah as prime minister and Mahmoud Abbas as "president," is a coalition with Hamas, whose suicide bombers blew themselves up in Israel on busy streets and in crowded public places and caused thousands of deaths and maimings, to say nothing of abducting and murdering three teen aged boys just six months ago. The Palestinian government is responsible for the war crimes committed by Hamas this past summer, including launching long-range rockets at densely populated cities, among them Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and sending its death squads to murder Israeli civilians indiscriminately.

Israel conducts military operations against Palestinian terrorism with pinpoint precision and in accordance with the best international legal and moral criteria. This past summer, as always, it warned the civilian population before it attacked terrorists, whose leaders had fled like rats into the basements of hospitals to wait out the war. In contrast, Palestinian terrorist organizations deliberately attacked the Israeli civilian population; they uttered no word of regret or sorrow, and certainly did not appoint a committee to investigate.

While Palestinians bemoan their failure to carry out a mass slaughter of Israeli civilians and destroy the country's infrastructure, mainly thanks to the Iron Dome aerial defense system, Israel is undertaking a comprehensive examination of complaints lodged by Palestinians, Israelis and the international community regarding possible illegal actions taken by Israeli soldiers and officers during Operation Protective Edge.

No country comes close to Israel in following the letter of the laws of warfare. Arab countries, many of which are currently engaged in mutual slaughter, cannot even approximate Israel's conduct when it comes to morality. Needless to say, no Palestinian or other terrorist organization has ever examined its own behavior the way Israel constantly does.

There are many Palestinians honest enough to admit – although not brave enough to do so publicly – that if they had the weapons Israel does, not one single Israeli would be left alive. Article 7 of the Hamas charter decrees the total annihilation of all the Jews in the world. Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas' partner in the Palestinian national consensus government, had the unmitigated gall to stand before the UN General Assembly and accuse Israel of genocide.

The Palestinians have received symbolic recognition for their "state" from the parliaments of Britain, Spain, France, Sweden and the EU, but they still have a long road to statehood if they cannot come to terms with Israel.

Hamas's recent attacks on the Israeli civilian population and the current chaos engulfing the Middle East have forced Israel to take extreme precautions regarding its security and not to accept any of the more adventurous international solutions for the conflict which will endanger its security. The regional conflicts and massacres in the Middle East show the Palestinian issue isn't the key to peace. This chaos clearly indicates that there is no connection between the general regional tragedy and the Palestinian issue. Nevertheless, there are still many people who cling to the fiction that resolving the Palestinian issue will, like a magic wand, cure all the ills of the Middle East.

It is obvious that the Gulf states, rather than dealing with the marginal Palestinian issue, are deploying to face the threat of a nuclear Iran, the drop in oil prices and America's weakness in dealing with the Middle East. In view of the worsening schism between the Russian-backed Shi'ite bloc of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon on the one hand, and the Sunni bloc of the rest of the Arab-Muslim world on the other, the repeated demands of the emir of Qatar (with Turkish backing) to solve the Palestinian issue while encouraging the Islamic terrorist organizations are ridiculous. Qatar, Turkey and their friends in the EU behave as if the utterly irrelevant Palestinian issue had anything to do with the current situation in the Middle East.

In reality, the Palestinian issue is not even floating around the perimeter of the Middle East's problems, despite Qatar's efforts to bring it center stage. It is grotesque that, aside from Arab extremists in Israel who support Qatar and Turkey, Israeli extremists are indulging in provocation to aggravate problems unnecessarily. These provocations include the settlements, the fairly unnecessary Jewish national homeland law and the obsession of the Messianic Jews with praying on the Temple Mount although it is forbidden by Jewish religious law. The attempts of extremist Jews to change the status quo serve only the unfounded claim of Palestinian subversives that Al-Aqsa mosque is in danger of destruction.

Furthermore, the Shi'ite regime in Tehran, blithely ignoring America's pathetic declarations, marches steadily towards an atomic bomb. It is also becoming clearer that the Iranians have tightened their hold on Sana'a, Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut. In the meantime, the Sunni states suffer from internal schisms, polarized by Turkey and Qatar, which support the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, ISIS and other Islamist terrorist organizations in the Middle East and Africa. The terrorist organizations, the fruit of the poison tree of Qatar and Turkey (which has given a safe haven to Hamas arch-terrorist Salah al-Arouri) are an internal threat to the Arab regimes, as the Muslim Brotherhood is an internal threat to Egypt. Turkey and Qatar.

Qatar patched up relations with Egypt and the Gulf states recently, but supports the terrorist organizations with money, arms and training bases, revealing its agenda to exploit the chaos in the Middle East to impose a radical Islamic regime on the region, a new Ottoman Empire, at the expense of enlightenment and progress.

The situation is explosive, anomic and rife with contradictions. Turkey, in its desire to destroy the Assad regime and the pro-Iranian administration in Baghdad, supports terrorist organizations such as ISIS. It also supports Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, endangering Israel and Egypt, both American allies. America, Turkey's ally in NATO, bombs ISIS, thereby strengthening the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon (Hizballah) axis, sworn enemies of America's other ally, Israel, instead of weakening it. And when Israel allegedly strikes strategic weapons meant for Hizballah, the enemies of the Assad regime, among them Turkey and ISIS, are immediately strengthened and Israel is condemned by Russia, which supplied the weapons to Syria and attacked Ukraine.

Within the Middle East's tangle of tragedy, refugees, destruction and slaughter, ISIS issued the Islamic laissez-faire for the rape of women taken captive: Yazidi women, Christian women, Jewish women. The manifesto of sexual horror appeared alongside the bombings, destruction of mosques and churches on the heads of worshippers, murders and beheadings that have made incomprehensible the steps taken by Europe against Israel, an island of sanity in a sea of Islamist madness. They have turned the UN commission headed by William Schabas, a proud anti-Semite, who is supposed to investigate objectively the "war crimes" committed by Israel into yet another chapter of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Schabas, the man who will judge Israel's actions, has accused the Jewish state of war crimes in the past, has refused to classify Hamas as a terrorist group, and has a record of defending Iran's nuclear weapons program as understandable and a defensive necessity.

The European Union, long an enclave of regression and a cat's paw for violent radical Islam, is trying to destroy Israel. Although Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at exclusively civilian targets (they only hit military bases when they fly off course) and is developing longer-range and more lethal rockets, the EU countries take no notice. They refuse to understand that the Palestinian Authority can barely rule the West Bank and has no chance of competing with Hamas' popularity in the Gaza Strip, especially now that the Europeans, in their endless folly, have taken Hamas off the list of terrorist organizations.

Abbas has even threatened to stop the Palestinian Authority's security coordination with Israel, a delusional idea because it is Israel that keeps him in power. Without Israel, the Palestinian national consensus government is a lost cause. In 2006, without security coordination with Israel, Fatah lost the Gaza Strip to Hamas, which threw Fatah supporters from the rooftops of high-rise buildings and kneecapped others. Abbas, a notorious Holocaust denier, deliberately uses the figure six million when counting the number of Palestinians scattered around the world as "refugees." It is a pathetic attempt to link the Palestinians to the number of Jews slaughtered by the Nazis in Europe. In reality 600,000 original Arabs fled Israeli territory in 1948 and their descendants can in no way be considered refugees today. Abbas cynically clutches the so-called "right of return" of the "six million Palestinian refugees" as a way to destroy Israel demographically.

It is absurd that the Jewish people, one of the oldest civilizations in the world, has to seek recognition and permission to exist from the newly-formed Palestinian Authority, itself torn by internal strife and power struggles. However, demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state is meant to show, at the symbolic-semantic level at least, that the Palestinians are sincere in their desire for peace. Unfortunately, Abbas cannot bring himself to do that. Instead he uses the pulpit of the UN to declare that the Jews "pollute" the holy places of Islam and Christianity in Jerusalem.

While Abbas bemoans the fact that Palestinians with no claim whatsoever on Israel cannot move en masse into its territory, he and the rest of the world conveniently ignore the absurd situation in which the descendants of the original refugees living in various Arab countries are not citizens, do not have the "status" of refugees, cannot hold most of the well-paying jobs, and basically have no civil rights at all. Israel, on the other hand, took in 800,000 Jewish refugees expelled from the Arab countries, without receiving reparations for the trillions of dollars of assets they were forced to leave behind.

EU leaders, reading from texts scripted by the Islamist terrorist organizations, are far more "shocked" by the so-called "war crimes" committed by Israel than by what their own ancestors did to the Jews, which can never be forgiven. The Europeans, who bear the responsibility for what happened to the Jews in Second World War, are trying to represent the Israelis as committing worse crimes than the Europeans who willingly, and in some cases eagerly, collaborated with the Nazi, as a way of shifting the mark of Cain from their own foreheads. They have to accept and openly declare that not one single Palestinian will enter Israel under the fictitious "right of return" and that if the "six million" Palestinian refugees want to return, they will return to the Palestinian state that may actually be established some day (a catastrophe in its own right).

Allowing "Palestine" to change its status in the ICC from "observer entity" to "observer state" is not a solution to any problem the Palestinians may have. Rather, it is another roadblock on the peaceful road to statehood. If the Hamas-Fatah terrorism conglomerate receives legitimacy from the nations of the world, the day is not far off that ISIS will have the same status with the support of the EU, and the Islamic Caliphate will achieve its manifest destiny. The recent dangerous European court decision to take Hamas off the list of terrorist organizations is another milestone on Europe's suicidal race to hell. The Americans, in the meantime, use their veto in the Security Council to support Israel, although facing the global typhoon of radical Islamism and terror they are like Hans Brinker, finger in the dike (Israel) to keep the tsunami of Islamist terrorism from engulfing Europe.


Dr. Reuven Berko has a Ph.D. in Middle East studies, is a commentator on Israeli Arabic TV programs, writes for the Israeli daily newspaper Israel Hayom and is considered one of Israel's top experts on Arab affairs.

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/4715/guest-column-palestine-and-the-icc

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Why Palestinians Opposed Abbas's Statehood Bid - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

"We are opposed to return to a path of 'futile' negotiations. Our people have the right to pursue resistance in all forms." — From an appeal by six Palestinian groups to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, against the resolution he submitted to the United Nations.
The widespread opposition among Palestinians to Abbas's statehood bid is a clear sign that many Palestinians remain opposed to any form of concessions to Israel. It is also an indication of fierce opposition among Palestinians to the resumption of peace talks with Israel.
"Hamas will not accept anything less than all the lands that were occupied in 1948." — Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar.

It is ironic that while Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas worked hard to win the support of the international community for his statehood bid at the UN Security Council, he failed to persuade many Palestinians to back his move.

Palestinians representing various factions, including Abbas's own Fatah faction, publicly came out against the draft resolution that was presented by Jordan at the U.N. earlier this week, and which failed to pass a Security Council vote yesterday.

The U.N. Security Council votes on the Palestinian statehood resolution, December 30, 2014. (Image source: UN/Evan Schneider)

Their main argument is that the resolution compromises the rights of the Palestinians and includes concessions to Israel that are unacceptable to most Palestinians.

The fierce opposition to the resolution shows that Abbas does not have a mandate from his people to embark on such a move. Abbas's critics accuse him and a number of his advisors of "hijacking" the decision-making process and acting on their own.

Fatah and PLO leaders say they were never consulted about the resolution, which calls for setting a timeline for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines.

Jamal Muheissen, member of the Fatah Central Committee, said that he and his colleagues learned about the draft resolution from the internet. They argue that Abbas and his top advisors had never presented the resolution to PLO and Fatah leaders before submitting it to the Security Council.

Several Palestinian factions even called on Abbas to withdraw the resolution from the Security Council -- an appeal that fell on deaf ears.

Hours after the resolution was submitted to the Security Council in New York on Monday, six Palestinian groups issued an urgent appeal to Abbas to withdraw immediately, claiming it compromises Palestinian rights on refugees, prisoners, Jerusalem and borders.

The Palestinian groups that issued the appeal against the resolution are: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Front-General Command and Al-Sai'qa.

These groups are opposed to the resolution not only because of the purported concessions it offers on the issues of refugees, prisoners, Jerusalem and borders, but also because it calls for a resumption of peace talks with Israel under the auspices of the US. "We are opposed to a return to the path of 'futile' negotiations," the groups said in a joint statement. "Our people have the right to pursue resistance in all forms."

Some Palestinians vowed to work toward thwarting the resolution; saying they would not allow Abbas and a few Palestinian officials in Ramallah to "turn their back on a majority of Palestinians."

Hassan Asfour, a former Palestinian Authority minister and member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, advised Abbas to "throw the ominous resolution to the nearest wastebasket."

Asfour added: "There's still a chance for President Abbas to return to his people before it's too late. It's time for Abbas to return to the national oath he made to defend the homeland and the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause."

Other Palestinians have accused Abbas of "high treason" for submitting a resolution that does not meet the national aspirations of the Palestinians and offers "far-reaching and dangerous" concessions to Israel.

Palestinian political analyst Fayez Abu Shamalah called for a commission of inquiry to hold those behind the resolution accountable.

"The unclear nature of the resolution represents political treason at the highest level," he charged. "The Palestinians have been deceived."

The widespread opposition among Palestinians to Abbas's statehood bid at the Security Council is a clear sign that many Palestinians remain opposed to any form of concessions to Israel. It is also an indication of fierce opposition among Palestinians to the resumption of peace talks with Israel.

Those who opposed the Palestinian resolution also argue that Abbas should have gone instead to the International Criminal Court to file "war crimes" charges against Israel. For many Palestinians, punishing Israel should take priority over any peaceful establishment of a Palestinian state.

But the opposition to the resolution, which envisaged a two-state solution, also shows that many Palestinians continue to believe that violence, and not diplomacy, will bring them closer to achieving their goals.

As Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar put it, "This Palestinian resolution is catastrophic and has no future on the land of Palestine. The future belongs to the resistance. We will continue to work to liberate all the land and achieve the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Hamas will not accept anything less than all the lands that were occupied in 1948."


Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4998/palestinians-statehood-bid

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Failed Palestinian Effort at the UN - Ambassador Dore Gold

by Dore Gold 

How can you have a Security Council resolution that decides Israel’s future borders on the basis of the 1967 lines and in the same breath assert that you are going to have a negotiation over borders?

The Palestinian draft resolution that was voted down by the UN Security Council was unacceptable to Israel for two essential reasons. First, all Israeli governments have insisted that any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be reached through direct negotiations between the parties.

That principle was enshrined in the Oslo Agreements in the 1990s. The 1995 Interim Agreement, signed at the White House by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat, in fact stated that negotiations were the only way to alter the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Interim Agreement was not only witnessed and signed by the United States, but also by the European Union – a fact that makes the French vote in the Security Council for the draft resolution very puzzling.

In substance, the draft resolution also sought to prejudge the outcome of any future negotiations. How can you have a Security Council resolution that decides Israel’s future borders on the basis of the 1967 lines and in the same breath assert that you are going to have a negotiation over borders? What is there left to negotiate? UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, did not require Israel to fully withdraw from the territories it captured in a war of self-defense.

It is often forgotten that Resolution 242 was the basis of all Arab-Israeli agreements from the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace to the 1993 Oslo Declaration of Principles to the 1994 Jordanian-Israeli Treaty of Peace. It was also the basis of the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference that launched the peace process.  True, the latest draft resolution mentions Resolution 242 in its preamble. But, by demanding a nearly full withdrawal by Israel in its operative section, the draft resolution essentially contradicts 242 in substance.

Finally, the draft resolution that was rejected exposes the strategy adopted by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president. He does not want to negotiate with Israel. Instead, he seeks to use international institutions in order to impose a solution on Israel. That is a course of action that no Israeli government can accept and the international community should not give it any support if it wants to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolved.

*     *     *



Text of the Palestinian Draft UNSC Resolution as Submitted by Jordan

December 17, 2014

Reaffirming its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967); 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1544 (2004), 1850 (2008), 1860 (2009) and the Madrid Principles,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and recalling its resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980), determining, inter alia, that the policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the territories occupied since 1967,including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Affirming the imperative of resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees on the basis of international law and relevant resolutions, including resolution 194 (III), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative,

Underlining that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, and calling for a sustainable solution to the situation in the Gaza Strip, including the sustained and regular opening of its border crossings for normal flow of persons and goods, in accordance with international humanitarian law,

Welcoming the important progress in Palestinian state-building efforts recognised by the World Bank and the IMF in 2012 and reiterating its call to all States and international organizations to contribute to the Palestinian institution building programme in preparation for independence,

Reaffirming that a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-State solution, building on previous agreements and obligations and stressing that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967, resolves all permanent status issues as previously defined by the parties, and fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties, Condemning all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism, and reminding all States of their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001),

Recalling the obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection in situations of armed conflict,

Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,

Noting with appreciation the efforts of the United States in 2013/14 to facilitate and advance negotiations between the parties aimed at achieving a final peace settlement,

Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a long-term solution to the conflict,

1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfills the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders;

    2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:

– borders based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps;

– security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces which will end the occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable time frame, not to exceed the end of 2017, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effective border security and by preventing the resurgence of terrorism and effectively addressing security threats, including emerging and vital threats in the region.

– A just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III);

– Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;

– an agreed settlement of other outstanding issues, including water;
 
   3. Recognizes that the final status agreement shall put an end to the occupation and an end to all claims and lead to immediate mutual l recognition;

   4. Affirms that the definition of a plan and schedule for implementing the security arrangements shall be placed at the center of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;

   5. Looks forward to welcoming Palestine as a full Member State of the United Nations within the time frame defined in the present resolution;

   6. Urges both parties to engage seriously in the work of building trust and to act together in the pursuit of peace by negotiating in good faith and refraining from all acts of incitement and provocative acts or statements, and also calls upon all States and international organizations to support the parties in confidence-building measures and to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations;

   7. Calls upon all parties to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;

   8. Encourages concurrent efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, which would unlock the full potential of neighborly relations in the Middle East and reaffirms in this regard the importance of the full implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative;

   9. Calls for a renewed negotiation framework that ensures the close involvement, alongside the parties, of major stakeholders to help the parties reach an agreement within the established time frame and implement all aspects of the final status, including through the provision of political support as well as tangible support for post-conflict and peace-building arrangements, and welcomes the proposition to hold an international conference that would launch the negotiations;

   10. Calls upon both parties to abstain from any unilateral and illegal actions, including settlement activities, that could undermine the viability of a two-State solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;

   11. Calls for immediate efforts to redress the unsustainable situation in the Gaza Strip, including through the provision of expanded humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and other United Nations agencies and through serious efforts to address the underlying issues of the crisis, including consolidation of the ceasefire between the parties;

    12. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution every three months;

    13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

The Palestinian draft resolution that was voted down by the UN Security Council was unacceptable to Israel for two essential reasons. First, all Israeli governments have insisted that any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be reached through direct negotiations between the parties.
That principle was enshrined in the Oslo Agreements in the 1990s. The 1995 Interim Agreement, signed at the White House by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat, in fact stated that negotiations were the only way to alter the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Interim Agreement was not only witnessed and signed by the United States, but also by the European Union – a fact that makes the French vote in the Security Council for the draft resolution very puzzling.
In substance, the draft resolution also sought to prejudge the outcome of any future negotiations. How can you have a Security Council resolution that decides Israel’s future borders on the basis of the 1967 lines and in the same breath assert that you are going to have a negotiation over borders? What is there left to negotiate? UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, did not require Israel to fully withdraw from the territories it captured in a war of self-defense.
It is often forgotten that Resolution 242 was the basis of all Arab-Israeli agreements from the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace to the 1993 Oslo Declaration of Principles to the 1994 Jordanian-Israeli Treaty of Peace. It was also the basis of the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference that launched the peace process.  True, the latest draft resolution mentions Resolution 242 in its preamble. But, by demanding a nearly full withdrawal by Israel in its operative section, the draft resolution essentially contradicts 242 in substance.
Finally, the draft resolution that was rejected exposes the strategy adopted by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president. He does not want to negotiate with Israel. Instead, he seeks to use international institutions in order to impose a solution on Israel. That is a course of action that no Israeli government can accept and the international community should not give it any support if it wants to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolved.

*     *     *

Text of the Palestinian Draft UNSC Resolution as Submitted by Jordan
December 17, 2014
Reaffirming its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967); 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1544 (2004), 1850 (2008), 1860 (2009) and the Madrid Principles,
Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,
Reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and recalling its resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980), determining, inter alia, that the policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the territories occupied since 1967,including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,
Affirming the imperative of resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees on the basis of international law and relevant resolutions, including resolution 194 (III), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative,
Underlining that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, and calling for a sustainable solution to the situation in the Gaza Strip, including the sustained and regular opening of its border crossings for normal flow of persons and goods, in accordance with international humanitarian law,
Welcoming the important progress in Palestinian state-building efforts recognised by the World Bank and the IMF in 2012 and reiterating its call to all States and international organizations to contribute to the Palestinian institution building programme in preparation for independence,
Reaffirming that a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-State solution, building on previous agreements and obligations and stressing that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967, resolves all permanent status issues as previously defined by the parties, and fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties, Condemning all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism, and reminding all States of their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001),
Recalling the obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection in situations of armed conflict,
Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,
Noting with appreciation the efforts of the United States in 2013/14 to facilitate and advance negotiations between the parties aimed at achieving a final peace settlement,
Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a long-term solution to the conflict,

1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfills the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders;

2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:

– borders based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps;
– security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces which will end the occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable time frame, not to exceed the end of 2017, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effective border security and by preventing the resurgence of terrorism and effectively addressing security threats, including emerging and vital threats in the region.
– A just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III);
– Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;
– an agreed settlement of other outstanding issues, including water;

3. Recognizes that the final status agreement shall put an end to the occupation and an end to all claims and lead to immediate mutual l recognition;

4. Affirms that the definition of a plan and schedule for implementing the security arrangements shall be placed at the center of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;

5. Looks forward to welcoming Palestine as a full Member State of the United Nations within the time frame defined in the present resolution;

6. Urges both parties to engage seriously in the work of building trust and to act together in the pursuit of peace by negotiating in good faith and refraining from all acts of incitement and provocative acts or statements, and also calls upon all States and international organizations to support the parties in confidence-building measures and to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations;

7. Calls upon all parties to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;

8. Encourages concurrent efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, which would unlock the full potential of neighborly relations in the Middle East and reaffirms in this regard the importance of the full implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative;

9. Calls for a renewed negotiation framework that ensures the close involvement, alongside the parties, of major stakeholders to help the parties reach an agreement within the established time frame and implement all aspects of the final status, including through the provision of political support as well as tangible support for post-conflict and peace-building arrangements, and welcomes the proposition to hold an international conference that would launch the negotiations;

10. Calls upon both parties to abstain from any unilateral and illegal actions, including settlement activities, that could undermine the viability of a two-State solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;

11. Calls for immediate efforts to redress the unsustainable situation in the Gaza Strip, including through the provision of expanded humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and other United Nations agencies and through serious efforts to address the underlying issues of the crisis, including consolidation of the ceasefire between the parties;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution every three months;

13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

- See more at: http://jcpa.org/failed-palestinian-effort-at-the-un/#sthash.mtafYM9i.dpuf

Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN, is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and serves as an external advisor to the office of the Prime Minister of Israel. He is the author of the best-selling books: The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City (Regnery, 2007), and The Rise of Nuclear Iran: How Tehran Defies the West (Regnery, 2009). - See more at: http://jcpa.org/failed-palestinian-effort-at-the-un/#sthash.mtafYM9i.dpuf

Source: http://jcpa.org/failed-palestinian-effort-at-the-un/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

IRGC Weekly To Saudis: 'Iran Has Many Options For Harming Saudi Arabia... All [It] Needs To Do Is Use A Single One' - Memri

by Memri


Relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have been extremely tense in recent years, are now deteriorating further as oil prices continue their downward trend. Iran is accusing Saudi Arabia of waging an oil war against it with the aim of damaging the Iranian economy – which is almost entirely dependent on oil revenues. Additionally, in recent days, Iranian spokesmen, most of them affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), have issued threats against Saudi Arabia.
On December 10, Iranian President Hassan Rohani called the decline in global oil prices the result of political planning by countries in the region, hinting at Saudi Arabia, and stressed that the Iranian people would not forget this "betrayal" and would "respond to it."[1] Earlier, on December 21, Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani said, while on a visit to Syria: "This time, we will not forget which countries schemed to lower the price of oil."[2] On December 15, the IRGC weekly Sobh-e Sadeq threatened that Iran would use "all the means at its disposal against Saudi Arabia," and on December 27, Amir Moussavi, a former IRGC diplomat who today directs the Strategic Studies and International Relations Institute, said, "Saudi Arabia's move is a suicidal step in the struggle against Iran in the region... So far, Tehran has held back, and has acted in moderation, but it seems that this time, this playing with fire is a type of suicide... Saudi Arabia is certain that Iran will not respond easily, but it seems that this time the situation is different, and if necessary Saudi Arabia's economic interests in the region and in the world will be harmed."[3]
Another reason for the tension between the two countries is the issue of the ethnic minorities in each of them. Iran is apprehensive about unrest among its numerous minorities, and accuses the Saudis of inciting them. At the same time, Iranian sources are indirectly calling for Shi'ites to rise up in eastern Saudi Arabia, where most of the country's oil is produced.
On December 14, 2014, against the backdrop of a Saudi media campaign against "the repression of ethnic minorities in Iran,"[4] Iran's Arabic-language Al-Alaam TV stated that the Saudi daily Al-Watan had "impudently" called on "the Gulf Cooperation Council states to interfere in Iran's domestic affairs and to kindle fitna [civil war]in [Iran's] south."[5] These statements referred to the Saudi daily Al-Watan's October 19, 2014 publication of an interview with Habib Jaber, head of the National Organization for the Liberation of Ahwaz, in which he called on the Arab countries to support the struggle for an independent Arab Sunni Ahwazi state in a region of Iran that is rich in oil reserves. 

On December 20, 2014, an IRGC-affiliated Twitter account tweeted, "The experience of Ansar Allah [the Houthhis in Yemen] and Hizbullah [in Lebanon] will be repeated in eastern Saudi Arabia. The people must defend themselves against the repeated military attacks by the Aal-Saud regime."

 @IRGCnetwork, December 20, 2014

A week later, on December 27, Hossein Hosseini, an Iranian journalist for the Japanese daily Yomiuri Shimbun, tweeted that the new Iranian daily Mardome-emrooz, which is affiliated with the pragmatic camp, had "6 days ago" sent a "warning message to Saudi 2 revise its antagonistic policies against Iran in oil, nuke, & regional." 


@hosseinhosseini, December 27, 2014

This paper will review some of the recent Iranian threats against Saudi Arabia in the context of the Iranian-Saudi oil war.

IRGC Weekly: "Iran Has Many Options For Harming Saudi Arabia"

On December 15, 2014, the IRGC weekly Sobh-e Sadeq published an article titled "Aal-Saud's Oil War Derives from Weakness" threatening to harm Saudi Arabia "with all the means Iran has at its disposal." It stated: "Saudi Arabia can be viewed as Iran's major and most criminal enemy in the region. It is a country that never, and in no situation – even when its relations with Iran were considered good – ceased its hostility towards Iran. Obviously, until recently, the hostility and enmity [of the Saudi royal family] was hidden; however, for some time now, it has been using anti-Iran measures openly and publicly – in other words, it is prepared for battle.

"The most recent Aal-Saud oil war against Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, waged at the command of the American bosses, is the newest and most overt Aal-Saud hostility... First of all, the new Saudi oil war proves once again that as long as the country's [Iran's] budget is based [almost entirely] on oil, the enemy can exploit this weapon in order to pressure Iran. For this reason, there needs to be an initiative, once and for all, so that [Iran's] revenues will not be oil-based; therefore, senior Iranian political and economic leaders must seriously address the 'resistance economy' [plan] emphasized in recent years by [Supreme] Leader [Ali Khamenei], so that we can neutralize weapons of this kind.

"Now that Saudi Arabia is using all its capabilities to harm Iran, the Islamic Republic [of Iran] can also use all the means at its disposal to pressure this obsolete, deteriorating regime. Iran has many options for harming Saudi Arabia. Because this tyrannical, medieval family is now at its nadir, all Iran needs to do is to use a single one of these means so that nothing remains of the entity named the Aal-Saud regime or of Saudi Arabia itself.

"Increased public protests, particularly in the oil-rich eastern [and largely Shi'ite-majority] areas of Saudi Arabia, have undermined the legitimacy of Saudi [rule]. These anti-[Saudi] regime protests are not unique to this part of Saudi Arabia; they are [also] happening in other parts of it. Additionally, the Houthis [in Yemen], who are considered Aal-Saud's sworn enemies, are at Saudi Arabia's back door [Yemen]; all they have to do is lift one finger for the disintegrating Aal-Saud corpus to collapse.

"Saudi Arabia no longer has the respect it once had from its Arab neighbors – and has serious problems with some of them. On the other hand, its support for the terrorist organization ISIS, and its operation of it, has spawned great hatred of Saudi Arabia in public opinion, in both the region and the world. Elements of ISIS that have been fattened by the Saudi regime have become sworn enemies of Saudi Arabia. Apparently, Saudi Arabia's free oil money cannot stop the increase in the weakness of the Aal-Saud regime. 

"But we wonder why [Iran's] diplomatic apparatus, and [Iran's] Oil Ministry, and particularly [Minister Bijan] Zanganeh who heads it, remain silent in light of Aal-Saud's open hostility – even though this betrayal by Aal-Saud enraged even President [Rohani]..."[6]

 

Iranian Columnist Hassan Hanizadeh: If Saudi Arabia Remains Stubborn, Saudi Shi'ites May Resort To Violence

In a December 2, 2014 interview with the IRGC-affiliated Fars news agency, Iranian columnist Hassan Hanizadeh, who is close to IRGC circles, said that the Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia, who are concentrated in the area of the eastern oil reserves, could in future pose a threat, and might even use violence, against the Saudi regime. Hanizadeh also linked Shi'ite Iran's successes in the region amongst its allies – in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen – to the possibility of a successful Shi'ite uprising in Saudi Arabia:

"The Wahhabiyya was established in Saudi Arabia by Great Britain in order to fight the other Islamic sects, and the Shi'ites gradually lost their influence. Thus, the Saudi regime marginalized and subjugated the Shi'ites – and this subjugation lasts to this day... The Shi'ites constitute about 16% of Saudi Arabia's population of 24 million... [The Saudi regime allows] the Shi'ites only minimal participation in the Saudi economy, culture, and society... Saudi Arabia does not permit them to be politically active, and so they cannot come together in political parties, and their political activity is restricted to the Hussainiyyas [Shi'ite religious centers]... The Shi'ites sense that Saudi Arabia regards them as second-class citizens, so their affiliation with the Shi'a surpasses their Arab nationalism, and they look beyond the borders of Saudi Arabia...

"The Shi'ite presence... near the Saudi oil wells and oil pipelines that constitute the country's economic artery could in future be dangerous for Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the Saudi regime systematically represses the Shi'ites, with international backing... Saudi Arabia's Shi'ites are attempting to obtain their rights via peaceful demonstrations – but if Saudi Arabia remains stubborn, they might become violent... Saudi Arabia's alliance with the U.S. and the West is allowing it to repress the Shi'ites without problems [for now] – but if one day the West and the U.S. have a problem with Saudi Arabia, this undoubtedly will benefit the Shi'ites...

"The Houthis' victory in Yemen, the Shi'ites' rise to power in Iraq, Hizbullah's empowerment [in Lebanon], Iran's growing power, and a possible victory for [Syrian President] Bashar Al-Assad as an 'Alawite-Shi'ite figure can all directly impact Shi'ite moves in Saudi Arabia... Undoubtedly, regional and global Shi'ite empowerment will strengthen the Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia.

"The Shi'ite power and capability in Saudi Arabia is drawn from the Shi'ites in the region; the more influence the Shi'ites [in the region] gain, the more they will be perceived as backing the Shi'ites in eastern Saudi Arabia. 

"If Saudi Arabia does not rethink its policy towards the Shi'ites, and does not plan a national reconciliation with them and does not appease them, there will be an all-consuming political crisis in the Aal-Saud regime, and reining it in will be very costly. 

"The presence of Shi'ites near vital elements of the Saudi economy, and the fact that 30% of Aramco's manpower in eastern Saudi Arabia is Shi'ite, increase the vulnerability of the regime. For this reason, any improvement in Iran-Saudi relations will improve the Shi'ites' circumstances in Saudi Arabia."[7]

 

IRGC Affiliate Tasnimnews: Saudi Arabia Must Be Prepared To Pay The Price For Its Decision To Wage An Oil War On Iran

On December 16, 2014, Tasnimnews.com, which is affiliated with the IRGC, published an article titled "Strategic Studies on the Saudi Oil Price Game" that stated: "Currently, there is not even the shadow of a doubt that the sharp drop in oil prices in recent weeks is a premeditated plot by Saudi Arabia. According to analysts, this [Saudi] move has three main objectives:

a)      "Sharply reducing Iran's revenues so as to force it to accept a bad deal in the nuclear negotiations;

b)      "Pressuring Russia and Iran to back down from their position on the Syrian issue;

c)      "Keeping the oil market [under Saudi control] and blocking competitors for whom it is economically unfeasible to produce oil at under $60[/bbl].

"The strategic significance of these objectives is that Saudi Arabia has begun using oil as an offensive political tool against its rivals; thus, it naturally must be prepared to pay the price for its position. Obviously, such a move on the part of the Saudis must not go unanswered.

"Saudi Arabia will not be able to continue playing this game for very long. The political game with oil prices is a short-range tactical maneuver, and its weak points will quickly be exposed. The Saudis know that they will soon have to end this game, but they stubbornly persist in it, and this shows their unprecedented strategic and geopolitical plight. Iran's growing regional power, [and] the successive loss of regions that Saudi Arabia had considered its backyard [Yemen], have severely undermined the logic behind the Saudi strategy. The Saudi attempt to use oil prices as an [anti-Iran] tool for vengeance is its admission of defeat in the regional strategic game, and indicates that the cards are being reshuffled.

"The Saudi game will not continue much longer for the following reasons:

a)      "Oil's current price does not match current market demand, and analysts say that the former is expected to increase in the upcoming months, up to $80[/bbl].

b)      "At the current price [of oil], it is economically unfeasible for the Americans to use [fracking] to [extract] oil. Therefore, the current price does not pay for America either. 

c)      "This price significantly reduces Saudi Arabia's oil revenues, after it had long been accustomed to an extremely profligate lifestyle. For this reason, it won't be able to withstand the situation in which its $750 billion in currency reserves based on cheap oil for very long. 

"From a strategic point of view, the most important thing for the Saudis to consider is that the oil weapon is its weapon of last resort, and that it has no more cards to lay on the table. As has been seen clearly in recent years, Iran's strategic decision-making apparatus has been designed to ensure that economic pressure does not  seriously impact [it], and therefore neither Iran nor Russia cannot be expected... to rethink their strategic decisions on the nuclear issues and on Syria. Therefore, Saudi Arabia must already know for sure that it will not be able to solve its regional geopolitical problems by tinkering with oil prices.

"The drop in oil prices can cause problems for Iran and Russia, but the Saudi regime's problems will remain unresolved in the process, as these [problems] derive primarily from the steep decline in its power at home. In the medium term, this scenario will result in Saudi Arabia's loss of its status as a rational player in the market without any of its geopolitical problems being resolved in any way.

"It is clear that this Saudi move cannot remain unanswered. Iran's optimal response is to further stiffen its position in the nuclear negotiations, and accelerate its plan for the region. Russia also apparently will respond in its own manner. Russia's main means of expressing its disapproval is to step up its military, intelligence, and strategic cooperation with Hizbullah [in Lebanon]. From a strategic point of view, the Saudi decision will compel Russia to abandon [this] conservative approach and to make an decision that has an impact on Saudi Arabia. In such a situation, Riyadh will quickly discern that it has achieved nothing, but has only lost important things."[8]

Iranian Think Tank Director And Former Diplomat: Saudi Arabia's "Playing With Fire Is A Type Of Suicide" And Its "Economic Interests, In The Region And In The World, Will Be Damaged"

 

In a December 27, 2014 interview with the Iranian daily Taadol, which is identified with the pragmatic camp, Strategic Studies and International Relations Institute director Amir Mousavi, who is also a former Iranian diplomat, said, "The Saudi measure was a suicidal step in the framework of the regional struggle against Iran. The [oil war] move by Riyadh and its allies was carried out at the suggestion of the Zionist regime in order to damage Iran's economic and political capacity in the region. Iran's support and its successes in the anti-terror fighting and against takfiri circles on the Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestinian fronts shows Iran's economic and diplomatic might...

"Considering the regional situation and Iran's status, Saudi Arabia and its allies have played their last card. They sought to damage the Rohani government... to render it passive. The sharp decline in oil prices imposes difficult conditions on Iran; at the same time, these countries are not under much pressure because they have solid foreign currency reserves in international banks and funds.

"Over the last 35 years, Saudi Arabia has done its utmost to damage Tehran. With this current move, it publicly entered the arena. From the 1987 murder [of the Iranian pilgrims] in Mecca to now, Tehran has restrained itself and acted with moderation. However, it appears that this time, [Saudi Arabia's] playing with fire is a type of suicide.

"The economy of these governments [i.e. Saudi Arabia and its allies] is very vulnerable, and they have no capacity to fight Iran politically, economically, or militarily. Iran has conveyed the necessary warnings to Riyadh. Saudi Arabia is certain that Iran will not easily retaliate, but it would appear that this time the situation is different and that if necessary Saudi Arabia's economic interests, in the region and in the world, will be damaged.

"Today, the world is progressing towards dialogue with Iran – but, due to the Zionist regime's efforts, Saudi Arabia is swimming upstream, and is trying to make an underhanded move against Iran and the resistance axis. Observers hope that Riyadh will use this opportunity [of dialogue with Iran] and that the wise and prudent in Saudi Arabia will rein in the extremists. It must not be forgotten that this country is most vulnerable because of regime matters and internal issues, and that if it continues to pursue a policy of damaging Iran, it must expect a harsh response from Tehran. The Islamic Republic of Iran's message [of warning] was delivered to Riyadh a week ago; may this conflict end soon."[9]

Ebtekar Daily: The Saudi Regime Is At "The Phase Of The Erosion Of The Legitimacy" Of Its Rule

 

Even the Iranian daily Ebtekar, which is identified with supporters of Expediency Council Chairman Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, wrote on December 16, 2014 that the Saudi regime is in "the phase of the erosion of the legitimacy" of its rule: "Why, in the world's only political entity named after a single family [Saudi Arabia], and in which women and minorities are deprived of rights, has there been as yet no revolution and no mass protest? Can this situation continue?...

"The Wahhabi clerics, and a substantial part of the Aal Saud family, think that the religion is still the foundation of the regime, and that it is the basis of the people's loyalty towards the regime. If the religion-based loyalty weakens, alternatives and other foundations, such as homeland or tribal affiliation, will be no substitute. Because a large part of the Saudi people is conservative, the regime still places itself in the clerics' camp... 

"Aal Saud is continuing to live by framing the royal system as an integral part of Saudi Arabia's customs and history – and, more importantly, by obtaining support from the religious establishment. As for the foreign aspect, the regime has, by establishing a special 'oil for security' relationship, obtained U.S. backing as a foreign buttress. Saudi Arabia's current regime continues to rely on the decades-old American policy according to which 'defending Saudi security is critical for America.'

"Nevertheless, the profound and extensive changes in Saudi Arabia over the last two decades show that the continuation of the current trend will become more difficult. Because of the existing threats and problems, the Saudi regime is at the phase of the erosion of the legitimacy [of its rule]. Its failure to control the situation and inability to adapt pave the way for an era of crisis – and, ultimately, for an absence of legitimacy. 

"In this context, the most crucial elements are the domestic aspect – that is, the proximity between the two main currents [in Saudi Arabia], that is, the liberal current and the [Islamist] Sawha current – and the foreign aspect – that is, a change in the U.S.'s Saudi policy."[10]

Cartoon: "Saudi impudence and the plan to sow fitna in Iran." Farsnews.com, December 17, 2014.                    

Cartoon: "Former top Israeli official: Saudi Arabia has realized an old Israeli dream" Tasnimnews.com, December 25, 2014

Endnotes:

[1] Fars (Iran), December 10, 2014.

[2] Fars (Iran), December 21, 2014.

[3] Taadolnewspaper.ir, December 27, 2014.

[4] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5904, Saudi Media Campaign Denounces 'Ethnic Minority Oppression' In Iran, December 15, 2014.

[5] Al-Alaam (Iran), December 14, 2014.

[6] Sobh-e Sadeq (Iran), December 15, 2014.

[7] Fars (Iran), December 2, 2014.

[8] Tasminnews.com, December 16, 2014.

[9] Taadolnewspaper.ir, December 27, 2014.

[10] Ebtekar (Iran), December 16, 2014.

Memri

Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8356.htm

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Baghdad's Dilemma - Lawrence A. Franklin

by Lawrence A. Franklin

The Kurdish Peshmerga fighters are poorly armed.
When you hear an occasional conversation in Persian, you listen harder, or should.

There are U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq. Most, as in the first months in Afghanistan after 9/11, appear to be CIA ground troops. The airline passengers who get off in Erbil, Kurdistan are all males in good shape and appear to be members of Western intelligence agencies, military advisors or diplomatic personnel.

The unobtrusive but well-guarded U.S. Consulate is a tiny, hole-in-the-wall compound on the main thoroughfare in the town of Ankawa, Erbil Governorate. The CIA and military intelligence compound rests on high ground on a nearby mountain. U.S. and West European military advisors train Kurdish Peshmerga fighters behind walled compounds. The American military advisors seem particularly drawn to the Kurdish volunteers' willingness to fight ISIS. The far thunder of allied bombing raids on ISIS pin-point targets can be heard late on most nights.

German military advisors train Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, October 2014. (Image source: Euronews video screenshot)

And of course, there is the U.S. Consulate's small, but larger than usual, Marine guard contingent. Despite this U.S. presence, the Americans are ghost-walkers. They are nowhere to be seen. It is lonely. You do not see anyone who looks like you. So many of the Western businessmen and investors got out when ISIS seemed on its way to Erbil. You can walk for hours and not hear any language except Kurdish or Arabic. However, when you hear an occasional conversation in Persian, you listen harder, or should.

Despite a few missteps in August in the fight against ISIS forces,[1] the Peshmerga's will to fight seems strong and, as can be seen by the huge processing backlog on volunteers, their morale seems high. The backlog list includes many women as well, some of whom may have been inspired by the brave young women fighting ISIS in the Syrian town of Kobane, near the Turkey-Syria border.

The Peshmerga fighters, however, are poorly armed. Iraq's former Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was largely responsible for blocking the delivery of weapons, ammunition, and salaries to the Peshmerga. Nevertheless, since the combined efforts of the newly appointed Prime Minister, Haidar al-Abadi, Kurdistan Regional Government [KRG] Prime Minister Nerchivan Barzani, and Federal Finance Minister Hoshyar Zebari, himself a Kurd, the situation has eased but is not totally resolved.[2] One KRG official, in conversation with its Minister of Peshmerga Affairs, Mustapha Sayyid Qadir, exclaimed, "Only half of the new recruits are outfitted with automatic weapons."[3] Peshmerga officers are bitter at Baghdad's failure to supply their troops with heavy weapons, while many such weapons fell into the hands of ISIS, after being left behind by fleeing Iraqi Army units. The Kurds, however, understand the logic of the Iraq's Arab regime: "The more weapons they permit us to have," one wounded Kurdish soldier explained," the more difficult it will be for them to suppress us as they have done so often in the past." [4] This is Baghdad's dilemma: Does it arm one of the few elements presently capable of resisting ISIS, even though such a decision risks strengthening Kurdistan's ability to secede from Iraq in the future?

The new, heavy footprint of allied military assistance for the Kurds may relieve Baghdad of that choice.

---

[1] The Kurdish Peshmerga forces fell back against determined attacks by ISIS along a belt of villages north of Mosul.
[2] Nightly News of Kurdish Rudaw Television, Al Jazeera reports, and Kurdish Globe Weekly articles.
[3] Source quoted upon agreement to maintain anonymity.
[4] Azad Ihsan.


Lawrence A. Franklin

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4985/baghdad-dilemma

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Election called off in Sweden in stunning backroom deal - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

Now, in a stunning backroom deal, the major parties of the left and right have collaborated to prevent the sole party opposing Sweden’s immigration policy from increasing its representation.

Three weeks ago, Sweden was set to have a snap election that would offer the voting public a chance to be heard on Sweden's immigration policy, which is importing one percent of its population per year from impoverished Muslim countries.  Now, in a stunning backroom deal, the major parties of the left and right have collaborated to prevent the sole party opposing Sweden’s immigration policy from increasing its representation.

On December 6, I explained how the Sweden Democrats (SD) became a rising force by being the only party opposing large-scale immigration, and were able to force a snap election by stymieing the passage of a budget.  They were anticipating radically increasing their share of seats from 14%, perhaps doubling or more their representation.

The Sweden Democrats are a rising force in Swedish politics, having picked up 29 seats in elections earlier this year, for a total of 49 seats in the 349-seat Rikstag, making the party the third-largest of the eight in the body. 

Now, Daniel Pipes writes in National Review:

SD is deemed anathema, so no party bargains with it to pass legislation, not even indirectly through the media. Both Left and “Right” seek to isolate and discredit it. Nevertheless, SD has played kingmaker on certain crucial legislation, particularly the annual budget. In keeping with its policy to drive from power every government that refuses to reduce immigration, it brought down an Alliance for Sweden government in early 2014. Recent weeks saw a repeat of this scenario, when SD joined the Alliance in opposing the leftist budget, forcing the government to call for elections in March 2015.
But then something remarkable occurred: The two major blocs compromised not only on the current budget, but also on future budgets and power-sharing all the way to 2022. The left and “right” alliances worked out trade-offs so that elections need not take place in March, allowing the Left to rule until 2018, with the “Right” possibly taking over from 2018 until 2022. Not only does this political cartel deprive SD of its pivotal role but, short of winning a majority of parliamentary seats in 2018, it has no meaningful legislative role for the next eight years, during which time the immigration issue is off the table.

Immigrants have already transformed certain areas, such as the city of Malmö, where parts are now no-go areas for police, and where Jews have fled violent anti-Semitism.  Immigrants account for a vastly disproportionate share of crime – rape in particular – and welfare dependency.  The Swedish birth rate is low, while immigrant birth rates are high, and their numbers are increased every year through immigration.

The unwillingness of both left and right parties to even discuss immigration is stunning, revealing a deep fear of the issue's unpopularity.  Pipes calls it “suicide by immigration,” and the language is fully justified.  The frustration of the popular will in Sweden is something that will not go down well in a country that prides itself on democracy and inclusiveness.  Pipes writes:

In the long term, however, things look good for SD, which will likely gain from this undemocratic sleight of hand. Swedes, long accustomed to democracy, do not appreciate a backroom arrangement that almost surely nullifies their votes in 2018. They don’t like its bullying quality. Nor do they take well to removing a highly controversial issue from consideration. And when the time comes to “throw the bums out,” as always it does, the Sweden Democrats will offer the only alternative to the tired, fractious coalition that will have been in power for eight long years — during which time immigration problems will alarm yet more voters.
In other words, this blatant act of suppression is spurring the very debate it is intended to quash. Before too long, the supreme issue of national suicide might actually be discussed.

Swedish politics are going to get very interesting in 2018.

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/election_called_off_in_sweden_in_stunning_back_room_deal.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.