Beyond the Cusp

October 19, 2014

Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei Tweets Nuclear Red Lines

Perhaps Tweeting is the new diplomatic courier for national figures and even the leaders of nations for making their desires, positions and calls for actions known to the world. Maybe the press conference is passé and nobody let me know. I wonder sometimes why I’m almost always the last to know these things. Perhaps it’s because I don’t have a Facebook presence. Anyway, the Ayatollah Khamenei issued his eleven demands in a tweet which was then made into a nice diagram by Mark Langfan which included his eleven red lines for the upcoming talks with the P5+1 (United States, Britain, Russia, France, China plus Germany) which are depicted in the cutest little diagram shown below.

 

Iranian Red Lines for Nuclear Talks

Iranian Red Lines for Nuclear Talks as stated by Ayatollah Khamenei

 

These are the actual demands in an easier to read listing:
1) Nuclear science movement should not come to a halt or even slow down.
2) Iranian Delegation should insist on continuing nuclear research and development.
3) No one has the right to bargain over nuclear achievements and no one will do so.
4) Our delegation should not accept any impositions from the other side.
5) International Atomic Energy Agency should establish normal and non-extraordinary relations with Iran.
6) Officials should have meetings and talks at the level of foreign ministers.
7) Protecting an organization like Fordow which the enemy is not able to destroy and is inaccessible to them.
8) Supplying the final need of the country’s enrichment capacity which is 190 thousand SWUs.
9) Basic needs of the country and some issues like the sanctions should not be tied to the nuclear talks.
10) These talks are only centered on the nuclear issue and not anything else.
11) As long as Americans continue their enmity and their hostile remarks about Iran, interactions with them will bears no practicality.

Information for this article taken from Mark Langfan’s article titled Iran’s Red Line: Centrifuges for 38 A-Bombs Per Year.

 

The demands set forth by Iran’s Supreme Leaders leave little if any doubt what their intentions are, to make as many nuclear warheads as they possibly are capable and to continue their research into making bigger and more powerful nuclear devices with a definite intention of gaining the knowhow to manufacture thermonuclear devices and warehousing sufficient nuclear warheads of varying sizes, multiple warheads, and yields such that they will be prepared at some point in the near future, within the decade, to make a swarm attack with nuclear devices against the United States, the European capitals and largest twenty-five cities and Israel with the intents of laying waste and completely destroying the American and Israeli society and populations and leaving Europe destroyed and rendered back to the Dark Ages. After the Iranians have obliterated the Western world their next move will be to demand that the entirety of Islam surrender and accept Shia Islam as their religion and the Iranian Mullahs and their Supreme Leader, the Grand Ayatollah, as the leadership of all Islam. They will demand the right to rule over the Holy cities of Mecca and Medina and will order that all the holy cities of Shia Islam be placed as the highest holy sites with any Sunni holy sites being rendered to lesser levels of holiness by comparison. The Iranian Mullahs have made no bones about their intention to become the leadership of a pure Islamic Caliphate consisting of a Shia body without any other sect or forms of Islam which might challenge their supremacy. There is nothing terrible about the desires by the Iranians to become the rulers and leaders of what they believe the only true form of Islam, and basically they have achieved this already as they basically are the de facto rulers in Iraq and control Syria and Lebanon outright before the civil war began in Syria and then spilled into Iraq and threatens Lebanon all indirectly resulting from the impetus which resulted from the Arab Spring turned Arab Winter and now becoming rapidly Arab Apocalypse, all of which could be indirectly traced as being tangential to President Obama’s Cairo speech and the policies which led to the United States withdrawal from much of their military locations within Middle East and North Africa nations and supporting the Arab uprisings while not nurturing or even policing the aftermaths.

What is a fear for the future concerning Iran is their desire to force all of Islam to follow their version of Islam or face the sword, as it is stated in the Quran, and then force the rest of the world to also be followers of Islam and by the manner by which they define it or face the sword. What makes their desire for world control is their willingness to go to extremes of destruction against any and every nations, peoples and followers of different faiths that the Iranian leadership has actually stated they are willing to utilize any and all facilities, weapons and other resources and methodologies in their conquest and reordering of the world. What is not surprising is that the majority of the world has either ignored or simply not bothered to listen or care enough to show concern over the Iranian threats. Even those who have noted and stated recognition of the Iranian aims have, for the most part, dismissed these threats as inconsequential or not realizable and thus there is no actual need to address or dedicate any resources or efforts to mitigate the threat. This is most evident in the P5+1 negotiations with Iran which actually could be better defined as negotiations between Iran supported for the most part by Russia and China negotiating with Britain and France who wish to slow if not prevent the Iranian nuclear program. Meanwhile, the United States holds the deciding weight but displays little desire to actually prevent Iran from their development of nuclear weapons in their nuclear program and even appear to be turning a blind eye and only wishing to end these discomforting negotiations which are causing high expectations from many outside concerned nations, Israel being the most vocal and even having carried their concerns long and loud even at the United Nations recently. United States leadership from President Obama to Secretary of State Kerry seem to only wish to be done with the entire responsibility for preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons to the point of a willingness to simply surrender if making any stand proves to possibly force the negotiations to fail by the deadline of November 24, 2014.

The negotiations are soon to be resumed which likely will be painstakingly tendentious as the United States continues to offer little resistance or make any meaningful input. The world may be once again hanging by the thread relying hopefully that Britain or France take the position of protector of the future and sanity of the world. This is not as far out of bounds as it may first appear as during an earlier session almost a full year ago early in November 2013, Britain was apprehensive and France simply was unaccepting leading to their veto of the agreement put forth by both the Iranians and United States. Both other Western nations suspected the deal was simply ceding too many points and demands to the Iranians. When this occurred was when I realized beyond reasonable doubt that President Obama was not only willing to relent on any and all principles simply to curry favor and appear to be actually finally earning that Nobel Peace Prize. I already knew that President Obama was mostly all about image, winning favor and being accepted as a friend willing to go that extra step, as long as that step was not difficult or requiring any great efforts including standing on principles. We are very likely about to witness another grand surrender once again in November as both President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry see no problems with the Iranians gaining nuclear weapons, period. They have both stated on numerous occasions that they believe that Iran having nuclear weapons would be no different than when the Soviet Union and China gained nuclear weapons capability and the Iranians will be deterred from ever deploying their nuclear weapons by the threat of mutual destruction. They both probably also see an Iranian nuclear weapon arsenal as a balancing against the presumed Israeli nuclear arsenal. They further believe that because any use of a nuclear weapon by terrorists, the weapon could be traced back to the source country which provided the weapon and this would prevent Iran or any other nuclear power from ever arming terrorists with such a weapon. All this trust and faith between the United States administration personnel and the Iranian Mullahs and Ayatollahs is just so warm and fuzzy, what is not to like. Well, other than such things as potential terrorist gaining nuclear weapons and the certainty that Iran becoming a nuclear power will without a doubt result in an arms race throughout the MENA countries (Middle East and North Africa) which will result in Saudi Arabia initially joining the nuclear club followed relatively soon by Turkey and Egypt and then Syria and Lebanon, providing Syria and Lebanon are still functioning nations, and eventually to most of the rest providing this arms race does not trigger the final Biblical Armageddon. Let’s party like it’s the end of the world, it very well might be being setup right now as we watch powerless to press any stop button and without any chance to interject our fears and realize our grandest hopes.

Beyond the Cusp

October 2, 2014

World Ready for Security Council Without United States?

Filed under: Absolutism,Administration,Air Support,Amalekites,American People Voice Opinion,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Arab Appeasement,Arab League,Arab World,Arabs,Armed Services,Arms Transfer,Ayatollah,Barbarian Forces,Bashir al-Assad,Beheading,Biological Weapons,Blood Libel,Britain,Calaphate,Chemical Weapons,China,Civilization,Commander in Cheif,David Cameron,Ditherer in Chief,Drone Strikes,Europe,European Governments,European Pressure,European Union,Executive Order,Foreign NGOs,Former Soviet Republic,Government,Hassan Rowhani,Hate,Internal Pressures,International Politics,Iran,Iranian Military,Iranian Pressure,Iraq,Iraqi Military,IRGC,ISIS,Islam,Islam,Islamic Pressure,Islamic State,Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham,Israel,Mahmoud Abbas,Military Advisors,Military Aid,Military Option,Mohammed,Muslim World,Muslims,Netanyahu,Nonjudicial Assassination,Nuclear Sites,Organization of the Islamic Conference,Palestinian Authority,Peace Process,Politicized Findings,Politics,Pre-Conditions,President Obama,President Vladimir Putin,Protests,Quran,R2P Right to Protect,Rebel Forces,Red Lines,Russia,Russian Military,Russian Pressure,Sharia,Shiite,Sunni,Syria,Syrian Military,Terror,Threat of War,Troop Withdrawal,Ukraine,United Nations,United Nations Presures,United States,United States Pressure,Victims,WMD,World Opinion,World Pressures — qwertster @ 3:23 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

In Israel most of the hubbub has revolved around the speeches before the General Assembly by Mahmoud Abbas and his accusations and abuses heaped on Israel and the response and defenses along with counter arguments by Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu by his speech. Further, there has been commentary of those parts of the speech by President Obama, among others, which were applicable to Israel in particular and the Middle East in general. Other than Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comparison equating Hamas and ISIS, not much of the other references and activities regarding ISIS have been given comment as they have mostly been ignored or mentioned in passing for background and supporting commentary by which Israel should expect to possibly find more vocal, unrestricted, unrestrained and unqualified support along with potentials for a more sympathetic understanding of the threats and difficulties faced by Israel and her peoples. But even should these hopes and aspirations materialize or not, there may have been evidence of a potentially far more sweeping and definitive change in the future which might have far reaching detrimental results for Israel. There was evidence given of a united opposition to the efforts by the United States to address and attack ISIS without having first attained the support of the United Nations and attaining a Chapter Seven Security Council Resolution. These demands were made by Iran and Russia who backed their complaint with accusations that the United States and their allies’ attacks on ISIS and their intents to arm and train Syrian opposition rebel groups as an uninvited aggressions and assault on the independent nations of Syria and Iraq. They further pointed to the actions taken jointly by the United States and Russia to attain Security Council backing for the initiatives to remove the chemical and biological weapons stores held by Bashir Assad in Syria which prevented any attacks on Syria by the United States holding them up as an example of the correct and cooperative manner for addressing such actions and its being preferable to any unilateral actions.

 

An international journalist and professor at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, Boris Kalyagin, speaking to Pravda.Ru on 23 September stated, “Such actions must be carried out exclusively within the boundaries of international law. That means not formal unilateral ‘notification’ of strikes but the clearly expressed approval of the government of Syria or the passage of a decision by the United Nations Security Council.” Further comments from the Wall Street Journal; noted that, “Hasan Rouhani, the president of Iran, agreed and said the U.S.-led airstrikes were illegal and constituted an attack on Syria, while also condemning Islamic State militants as ‘barbarians.’” Also quoted in the same article was Bassam Abu Abdallah, director of the Damascus Center for Strategic Studies, which is close to the Syrian regime, who stated “We are witnessing the beginning of change in the U.S. position. And in politics you have to deal with reality no matter how long you resist; there is a Syrian state that has persevered and there are institutions that one can communicate with.”

 

The question many might be asking about now is, “How does this relate to the Security Council without the United States?” It probably would not surprise anybody to hear that Russia in a former life as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had expressed desires to have the veto power removed from the United States as well as its permanent membership in the Security Council even at the cost of giving up its similar privileges. These expressions were usually supported by the Soviet bloc nations as well as China, the Arab and Muslim bloc nations and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) nations, all of which have misgivings about the vetoes cast by the United States which have blocked their efforts to enforce their political intrigues. One glaring example has been the attempts of the nations of the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (IOC) and other Muslim and Arab majority nations to gain sanctions, denunciations and other censures against Israel which have almost universally met with a United States veto. One outstanding exception was after the Israeli airstrike against the Iraqi Osirak Reactor on June 7, 1981, when the United States did not veto the Security Council’s denouncing the Israeli strike on another United Nations member state, something not usually successfully accomplished against Arab nations for actions and activities against Israel. The desired changes which those disgruntled with the veto powers of the five permanent members of the Security Council, whether the discontent is over their permanent representation or their ability to unilaterally vote down any motion unilaterally with their permanent veto powers, is for at a minimum to have the veto powers rescinded and more optimistically to have the permanent representation rescinded as well thus allowing for all the positions on the Security Council to be rotated allowing for complete equality in the representation to the Security Council which would result in the Security Council to be nothing more than a glorified General Assembly with the Western nations facing overwhelming opposition by the representation from the rest of the nations. Such a Security Council would result in regular denunciations of Israel and the United States rendering both nations susceptible to economic sanctions and potential interventions by the rest of the world all done under the auspices of the United Nations. Imagine the Security Council acting as an echo chamber for the Human Right Council or the General Assembly. Such would be a resounding nightmare for the so-called free world.

 

Where these denunciations of the efforts by the United States and allies in combating ISIS and incorporating arming and training the Syrian rebels in their attempts to change the Syrian governance which would likely remove Syria from Iranian influences have not mentioned removing the United States veto power or permanent status in the Security Council, they are being initialed by the same interests. Former attempts to remove the United States from their blocking position in the Security Council had been centered and championed by the USSR and these efforts had pretty much gone into remission after the fall of the Soviet Union. With the recent expansionist policies and efforts engineered by Russian leader Vladimir Putin and the resumption of some of the old axes of the Arab bloc nations joining with the replacement of the USSR, the Russian Federation, we may also soon witness a renewal of the efforts to change the makeup of the Security Council which would start by removing the veto powers of the permanent members and eventually the removal of any permanent membership thus removing much of what differentiates the Security Council from the other United Nation bodies. This was a warning shot over the bow of both the United States generally and President Obama in particular. The message was a simple one warning President Obama not to get too adventurous and to not strike out too independently and remember his place and the promises he has made and the predicament that President Putin had rescued him from vis-s-vis the Syrian chemical weapons Obama Red-Line fiasco, thus the mention of the cooperative efforts between Putin and Obama and their using the United Nations to address that situation before it got completely out of hand. The warning is that there is the possibility that President Obama may have misjudged the situation and this was the one opportunity he was being warned to take to return to the greater flexibility he had promised to be capable of taking after his reelection. This was also a blatant warning from President Putin to President Obama to back off and remember his place. The odds are that President Obama will heed this warning and retreat and seek to gain the cooperation of the Security Council and by such provide Iran and Syria with a say as to how the allied bombings against ISIS will be carried out and where and when such strikes will be allowed to be carried out. We might also see a retreat on training of the rebels though it is doubtful that Britain’s Prime Minister Cameron will back away from his efforts in training and arming rebel forces so easily. It is not likely that there will be any efforts immediately to seek the redefinition of the Security Council as President Putin also enjoys the ability to stymy any adventurous use of the powers of the Security Council, especially should such efforts be taken pertaining to the conflicts currently in the Ukraine and the potential for further Russian adventurism in Luxemburg or any of the other former Soviet satellite nations. This will be an interesting test of whether President Obama has grown any bolder as a result of being forced by the threat situation to act boldly and take military measures in the Middle East and especially in Iraq, even more so after he had announced that he had pulled all the American forces from Iraq and left behind a strong, vibrant and independent nation capable of taking care of its future without the need of American military presence. It will also be an indicator of what direction the Iran nuclear negotiations are likely to take, but more on that in the near future.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

September 29, 2014

Did Obama and Abbas Share a Speech Scripter?

Filed under: 1949 Armistice Line,1967 Borders,Absolutism,Administration,Amalekites,Ambassador,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Appointment,Arab Appeasement,Arab League,Arab World,Arabs,Blood Libel,Borders,Britain,Cabinet,China,Civilization,Condemning Israel,Conflict Avoidnce,Crimes Against Humanity,Dhimmi,Divided Jerusalem,Domestic NGOs,Egypt,Europe,European Pressure,European Union,Executive Order,Forced Solution,Foreign Funding,Foreign NGOs,France,Francois Hollande,Gaza,General Assembly,Government,Great Britain,Green Line,Hamas,Hamas Charter,Hate,History,Hudna,Infiltration Tunnels,Inteligence Report,International Criminal Court,International Politics,Intifada,Islam,Islamic Pressure,Islamic State,Islamist,Israel,Israeli Capital City,Israeli Interests,Jerusalem,Jewish Heritage,Jewish Home,Jewish Leadership,Jewish State,Jews,Jordan,Jordan River,Judea,Judean Hills,Knesset,Koran,Kotel,Land for Peace,Machpelah,Mahmoud Abbas,Mediterranean Sea,Middle East,Military,Military Aid,Military Base,Military Intervention,Military Option,Muslim World,Muslims,Naqba,Nonjudicial Assassination,Old City,Palestinian,Palestinian Authority,Palestinian Pressures,Partition Plan,Peace Process,Peacekeepers,Pentagon,Politicized Findings,Politics,Pre-Conditions,President Obama,Promised Land,Protective Edge,R2P Right to Protect,Recep Tayyip Erdogan,Recognize Israel,Rock Throwing,Rocket Attacks,Russia,Russian Pressure,Samantha Power,Samaria,San Remo Conference,Secretary General,Security,Security Council,Sharia,Smuggling Tunnels,Soldiers,Special Forces,Statehood,Suicide Bomber,Support Israel,Syria,Taqiyya,Temple Mount,Terror,Terrorist Release,Third Intifada,Threat of War,Turkey,Two State Solution,United Nations,United Nations Presures,United States,United States Pressure,US Air Force,US Army,US Marines,US Navy,Western Wall,World Opinion,World Pressures,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 2:31 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Where it would be near impossible that both men had their United Nations speech written by the same person; though, it did appear that somebody inspired the crafting such that they each played their part in a well scripted production. What has to be incorporated into these considerations is the ugly little surprise Abbas plans on hatching with an important assist he choreographed with French President Hollande during his quick stopover in Paris. The plan is with the full backing from France, Abbas will petition the United Nations Security Council for a Chapter Seven Resolution fully enforceable demand for a solution of the Palestinian conflict with Israel within three years otherwise a preset settlement will be enforced by any means necessary. The borders for the enforced settlement will, of course, be drawn around the pre Six Day War 1949 Armistice Lines, also called the Green Line, which returns Israel to her once undefendable borders with Jerusalem divided granting the entire Old City with the Temple Mount and the Western Wall to the Palestinians. This is the plan that France’s François Hollande gave Mahmoud Abbas his full support and backing for introducing to the United Nations Security Council during the intense and heightened levels of activity which seem to occupy Turtle Bay towards the end of September every year with the opening of the United Nations General Circus Assembly and the parade of tin pot dictators and oligarchic monarchs to the podium to vilify and impugn the leaders of the democratic free world. This year appears to be shaping up as a banner year tipping the scales well into the territory of the absurd.

Mahmoud Abbas led off speaking before President Obama and set the stage with his usual bombastic rhetoric castigating Israel as the greatest of evil of nations unsurpassed through the annals of history; beyond the Mongol Hordes, beyond the excesses of the Roman Emperor Caligula and unequaled even by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. This coming from the man who arranged the financing, arranged the training and the overall coordination for the terrorist assault on the Munich Olympics where his trained and financed murderers enacted a grand spectacle before the cameras the world over which culminated in the slaughter of the Israeli Olympic team. During his speech, Mahmoud Abbas statements included accusing Israel of in this, “the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People,” of having, “chosen to make it a year of a new war of genocide perpetrated against the Palestinian people.” He further accused Israel of “launching its war on Gaza, by which its jets and tanks brutally assassinated lives and devastated the homes, schools and dreams of thousands of Palestinian children, women and men and in reality destroying the remaining hopes for peace.” Further, Abbas reiterated his string of lies against Israel including mention of “the third war waged by the racist occupying State in five years against Gaza, this small, densely-populated and precious part of our country.” Never mind that this was the third war initiated by Hamas by raining rockets onto Israeli towns, cities and Kibbutzim after, this time around, having abducted three Israeli teens and having murdered them disposing of their bodies in a shallow grave, but why ruin such a perfect rendition of fictions regaling the majority of the assembled representatives from the least reputable nations in our world. Abbas further into his speech laid out the reasoning which was supposed to mitigate the violence and rioting perpetrated by the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria or the rock ambushing of Israeli drivers by Palestinians and other assaults on Jews within Jerusalem by excusing their actions claiming, “We must also assume that no one will wonder anymore why extremism is rising and why the culture of peace is losing ground and why the efforts to achieve it are collapsing.” His resolution is that Israelis are destroying any possibility for a peaceful resolution to the situation despite his having to refused numerous offers for a Palestinians state, one such refusal even managed to infuriate President Clinton who laid the blame for his not managing to resolve the Palestinian Israeli conflict at the feet of the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat, the man whose shoes it can honestly be said Abbas has filled with the sane tenacity demanding that the sole resolution he will ever accept must include the complete destruction and elimination of Israel. Abbas insisted that the Palestinian will “not for a moment … abandon our humanity, our values and our ethics … and we will maintain the traditions of our national struggle established by the Palestinian Fedayeen and to which we committed ourselves since the onset of the Palestinian revolution in early 1965.” This may have been his sole slip as his giving the year of the initiation of the Palestinian struggle to destroy Israel as 1965 reveals a simple fact, their struggle began at least two years before there was any occupied or contested territories as the Six Day War did not occur until 1967; so who and what exactly were his Palestinian Fedayeen fighting against and for what offense or reason in 1965? That leaves only one answer should one honestly evaluate this slip, they were fighting then for exactly the same ideal and result. They now continue their fight, the eradication of Israel. Abbas even sets the date where Israel presumably established their colonizing ways after responding to an attack by Syria and Egypt and pleaded with Jordan not to join the conflict which they ignored by attacking across central Jerusalem in the second day of the Six Day War just as Abbas stated, “Israel refuses to end its occupation of the State of Palestine since 1967.”

In his lengthy and slanderous conclusions did manage to hold some jewels of truth, except that they twisted the reality to fit his dreamscape of reality. He pontificated, “It is impossible, and I repeat – it is impossible – to return to the cycle of negotiations that failed to deal with the substance of the matter and the fundamental question.” I agree with this thus far as negotiating with Abbas can only result in one of two eventualities, the end of Israel or the end of any possibility for peace as Abbas will reject anything less than Israel’s demise and thus will once again miss every opportunity. Then he finally introduced the initial introduction of his demand which will be the main theme of his entire visit at the United Nations when he said, “there is no value in negotiations which are not linked to a firm timetable for the implementation of this goal. The time has come to end this settlement occupation” Then he laid out his claim that is coming for there to be international forces sent to impose his nightmarish solutions when he pleaded, “The people of Palestine are actually the ones who need immediate international protection.”

Skip forward and we arrive with President Obama at the podium. Perhaps there is nothing to the seeming continuity where President Obama appeared to be answering Abbas and his apparent wish for a solution to be imposed so that the final solution between the Palestinians and Israelis would not be dependent on negotiations and a mutually reached agreement. While there can be serious doubt as whether President Obama favors Islamic nations over non-Islamic nations, there is little debate discounting his apparent animosity for Israel and particularly its Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu. President Obama’s initial introductory lines as he approached direct commentary on the future he suspects concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were uncritical and neutral as he stated, “We recognize as well that leadership will be necessary to address the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. As bleak as the landscape appears, America will not give up on the pursuit of peace. Understand, the situation in Iraq and Syria and Libya should cure anybody of the illusion that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the main source of problems in the region. For far too long, that’s been used as an excuse to distract people from problems at home.” The rest of that section began to give a small hint that things were likely to get more critical as he added, “The violence engulfing the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard work of peace. And that’s something worthy of reflection within Israel.”

The next sentence was when President Obama may have dropped the initial bombshell when he turned serious in his tone stating, “Because let’s be clear: The status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable.” Then came the driving impetus which makes the situation untenable and in desperate need of a resolution as he stated the obvious, “We cannot afford to turn away from this effort – not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza.” Then he left things hanging by stating a bromide which would leave most critics scratching their heads trying to figure out where he had intended to go as he concluded this section of his speech stating, “So long as I am President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis, Palestinians, the region and the world will be more just and more safe with two states living side by side, in peace and security.” So, where was the rest of the bombshell, or did we simply miss something somewhere in the middle which held more meaning and gave a clearer picture and he simply disguised his intentions by suspending it in the middle of a lot of diplospeak?

Where this may be hyperbole and exaggeration or simply misreading President Obama or it might be the real meaning and definition of his intentions couched in an oblique set of references which might mean what I think it does. The two lines came separated as he paused seemingly as if passing from one paragraph to the next and waiting for the teleprompter to pass beyond a blank space in the text. Before the pause he critiqued Israelis claiming, “The violence engulfing the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard work of peace.” Was this simply a reference to polling results he may have read where it stated that many Israelis were less than pleased that the recent conflict with Hamas ended before Hamas had been removed from Gaza and he interpreted the reaction of Israelis to this third conflict initiated by Hamas in the last five years and a feeling that to end these rocket attacks that Hamas would need be removed permanently to mean that Israelis desired a military resolution to the entire conflict or was it an accusation fired across the bow at Prime Minister Netanyahu and many of the leaders in the parties of the ruling coalition that they be more accommodating in order to allow negotiations to lead to a final solution and blaming Israel for the lack of peace, agreeing with the accusations made by Abbas? The next line was the pause before the storm, a throwaway line meant to place doubt if the previous line and the one following were part of the same thought and should be read together without this spacer where he added almost as a disarming giveaway, “And that’s something worthy of reflection within Israel.” Then followed the strong positing of what President Obama sees as necessary to end the seemingly never ending lack of progress stating plainly, “Because let’s be clear: The status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable.” This echoes the statements made by Abbas in his speech where he exclaimed, “It is impossible, and I repeat – it is impossible – to return to the cycle of negotiations that failed to deal with the substance of the matter and the fundamental question. The people of Palestine are actually the ones who need immediate international protection.” Add this to the likely advice which President Obama is likely to get from the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power who stated clearly in an interview just over a decade ago that she would not be adverse to providing troops to enforce a peace and protect the Palestinians from any aggressions by the Israelis. This all might be the initial indications that even should the United States not support Mahmoud Abbas when he requests action by the Security Council in placing a deadline for an agreed peace otherwise a solution be imposed forcing Israel to surrender all claims beyond the Green Line and surrender much of Jerusalem to the Palestinians facing an international military force that the United States will also not use its veto to prevent such a vote from passing. With the French already supporting this proposal and neither Russia or China likely to veto any such motion, though Russia could surprise the world, that would leave the only chance to defeat such a proposal to the British as most of the rest of the nations currently serving on the Security Council would definitely see such a motion favorably. Perhaps the best hope is for Abbas to be spooked enough by his own doubts to decide not to take the risk and instead do as he has done in the past and simply settle for a General Assembly vote which carries no real weight but makes him appear to have made strides and might serve to aid him in any upcoming elections. The one truth known about Abbas is he fears falling from power almost as much as he fears having to preside over a real nation where instead of blaming Israel he actually has to deliver on providing water, electricity, trash removal and all the other banalities expected of governments.

One item always comes into focus and refuses to wane or fade into the background and instead claims to be important and necessary to point out once again. I try to minimize it by sweeping it aside with the thought that anyone who visits here has already heard of this fact and it simply demands attention for those first time or new readers; so I fear I must give in. This has to do with President Obama on his first inauguration day in January of 2009. After being sworn in (twice if you believe the going rumors), eventually the newly instated President Obama made it to the solitude and quiet of the Oval Office and sat down to make the customary calls to world leaders. The item of note is which world leader President Obama made his first official phone conversation with, and that turned out to be Mahmoud Abbas, President of a fan club more than of an actual State. Fortunately Mahmoud Abbas is no longer number one on President Obama’s speed dial; that honor now is bestowed on Turkey’s first elected President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Still, the prominence given Abbas initially has always weighed heavy and helped explain the disdain for Israel and Netanyahu shown by President Obama in his first term and with the two speeches this fear of their teaming up still is haunting from deep in the dark recesses of my thoughts.

Beyond the Cusp

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: