903 CIA & Green Left ('Liberal', 'Feminist') Coup against Trump; he plays Zionists against them

CIA & Green Left ('Liberal', 'Feminist') Coup against Trump; he plays
Zionists against them

Newsletter published on 29 December 2016

(1) CIA Coup to stop Trump taking office & improving Russia relations -
James Petras
(2) Michael Moore urges Green Left "rapid response teams" to block Trump
& Congress
(3) Gloria Steinem to march in Trump inauguration protest, vows "we will
organize"
(4) Trump plays Zionists against Liberal (Green Left) Jews - Israel Shamir
(5) Trump the disappearing "Neutral Guy" on the Mideast crisis
(6) Israeli Ambassador lambasts Obama. Obama furious that Netanyahu got
Trump to phone al-Sisi

(1) CIA Coup to stop Trump taking office & improving Russia relations -
James Petras

From: "Ken Freeland diogenesquest@gmail.com [shamireaders]"
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:37:17 -0600
Subject: [shamireaders] Petras - The Coup against Trump and His Military
- Wall Street
  Defense
From: James Petras <jpetras@binghamton.edu>

http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=2118

The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense

James Petras

Introduction

A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from
taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia
relations.  This ‘palace coup’ is not a secret conspiracy, but an open,
loud attack on the election.  The coup involves important US elites, who
openly intervene on many levels from the street to the current
President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire
financiers out to the more marginal ‘leftist’ shills of the Democratic
Party.

The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate
normal constitutional and democratic constraints.  This essay describes
the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives, mostly members of the
outgoing Obama regime.

The second section describes the Trump’s cabinet appointments and the
political measures that the President-Elect has adopted to counter the
coup.  We conclude with an evaluation of the potential political
consequences of the attempted coup and Trump’s moves to defend his
electoral victory and legitimacy.

The Coup as ‘Process’

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of
the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may
help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington.  These
are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the
‘midwife’ for these ‘regime changes’.

Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the
elected Presidents were ousted through a series of political
interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies
in Congress and the Judiciary.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in
these operations as part of their established foreign policy of ‘regime
change’.  Indeed, the ‘success’ of the Latin American coups has
encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect
Trump from taking office in January.

While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United
States occurs within a very different power configuration of proponents
and antagonists.

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an
elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017.  Secondly, the
attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and
economic elite.  It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the
intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading
the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process.  Thirdly, the evolving
coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then
escalate very rapidly.

Coup-makers depend on the ‘Big Lie’ as their point of departure –
accusing President-Elect Trump of 1) being a Kremlin stooge, attributing
his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his Democratic
Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and 2) blatant voter fraud in which the
Republican Party prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for
Secretary Clinton.

The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included
the marginal-left Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who
won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass media.

In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority
from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in
donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO’s
(many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign).  This
dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states
in order to challenge Trump’s victory.  The recounts failed to change
the outcome, but it was a ‘first shot across the bow’, to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to
mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s electoral
victory.  However, Jill Stein’s $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary
Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO
propaganda against Trump.  Their main claim was that anonymous ‘Russian
hackers’ and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential
election of November 2016!

The ‘Big Lie’ was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the
print and broadcast media.  The ‘experts’ were trotted out voicing
vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and
documentation of a ‘rigged election’.  Everyday, every hour, the
‘Russian Plot’ was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the
New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and
their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and
Africa.  The great American Empire looked increasingly like a ‘banana
republic’.

Like the Billionaire Soros-funded ‘Color Revolutions’, from Ukraine, to
Georgia and Yugoslavia, the ‘Rainbow Revolt’ against Trump, featured
grass-roots NGO activists and ‘serious leftists’, like Jill Stein.

The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their
editorial pages to question Trump’s illegitimacy.  This established the
ground work for even higher level political intervention:  The current
US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress
from both parties, and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into
the fray.  As the vote recount ploy flopped, they all decided that
‘Vladimir Putin swung the US election!’  It wasn’t just lunatic
neo-conservative warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary
Clinton on the American people, liberals and social democrats were
screaming ‘Russian Plot!’  They demanded a formal Congressional
investigation of the ‘Russian cyber hacking’ of Hillary’s personal
e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival ‘Bernie Sanders’ in the
primaries).  They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against
Russia and increased military provocations.  The outgoing Democratic
Senator and Minority Leader ‘Harry’ Reid wildly accused the FBI of
acting as ‘Russian agents’ and hinted at a purge.

The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and
"election fraud".

As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama
stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the
investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially
accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian
government.  Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot,
citing ‘national security’.

President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave
threat to American democracy and Western security and freedom.  He
darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, "...at a time and place of
our choosing".

Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and
increase arms shipments to the jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as
the Gulf State and Saudi ‘allies’.  Coincidentally, the Syrian
Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed
terrorists out of Aleppo – and defeat Obama’s campaign of ‘regime
change’ in Syria.

Trump Strikes Back:  The Wall Street- Military Alliance

Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the
Clintonite-coup in progress.  He prepared a diverse counter-attack to
defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their
previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term
‘lies’) for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  He appointed three retired
generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power
struggle between the highly politicized CIA and the military.  Active
and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been key Trump
supporters.  He announced that he would bring his own security teams and
integrate them with the Presidential Secret Service during his
administration.

Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the
financial elite who supported the coup, Trump countered by appointing
several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his cabinet who
had their own allied business associations.

One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist
organizations and leaders (ADL, George Soros et al), was the bizarre
claim that Trump and his supporters were ‘anti-Semites’.  This was were
countered by Trump’s appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like
Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman
Sachs) to head the National Economic Council.  Faced with the Obama-CIA
plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the
President-Elect named security hardliners including past and present
military leaders and FBI officials, to key security and intelligence
positions.

The Coup:  Can it succeed?

In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to
‘complete its investigation’ on the Russian plot and manipulation of the
US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the very day of
Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2017!  A concoction of pre-cooked
‘findings’ is already oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with
the President’s approval.  Obama’s last-ditch effort will not change the
outcome of the election.  Clearly this is designed to poison the
diplomatic well and present Trump’s incoming administration as
dangerous. Trump’s promise to improve relations with Russia will face
enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has
consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military
confrontations.  He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque
policies onto the incoming Trump Administration.  Will Trump succumb?
The legitimacy of his election and his freedom to make policy will
depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with his own
bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his
mass support among the ‘angry’ American electorate. Trump’s success at
thwarting the current ‘Russian ploy’ requires his forming counter
alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any
diplomatic agreement with Putin.  Trump’s appointment of hardline
economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social
programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the
anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care,
pensions and their children’s future.

If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup
(which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he
will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but
also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton’s detested
‘basket of deplorables’).  He embarked on a major series of ‘victory
tours’ around the country to thank his supporters among the military,
workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his
election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises
to the masses or face ‘the real fire’, not from Clintonite shills and
war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.

(2) Michael Moore urges Green Left "rapid response teams" to block Trump
& Congress

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/michael-moore-instructions-for-taking-on-donald-trump

BY MARK HENSCH - 12/27/16 10:11 PM EST

Michael Moore outlines steps for challenging Trump

Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore on Tuesday detailed his five-step
strategy for countering President-elect Donald Trump

"All hands on deck!" Moore wrote on his Facebook page.

"Brush yourself off and let’s get busy because: a.) All hope is not
lost; b.) There are more of us than there are of them; and c.) The
roadside is littered with the ended careers of self-absorbed,
narcissistic politicians whose arrogance led them to do things that
caused their early resignation or impeachment. Don’t think that can’t
happen here."

Moore then predicted Trump would be "a lot worse" than many expect
before calling on voters to pressure their lawmakers to oppose the
president-elect.

"If he/she is a Republican, they will explain why they ‘support the new
president,’" he said. "You then must politely tell them you and everyone
you know will work to unseat them in 2018 if they don’t act
independently from Trump."

"If your rep is a Democrat, tell him/her you expect them to AGGRESSIVELY
fight the Trump agenda — and if they don’t, you will work with others to
support a true progressive in the Democratic primary in 2018."

Moore also urged voters to form their "own rapid response team" to
quickly react to Trump and the GOP-led Congress.

The "Fahrenheit 9/11" director then called on those frustrated with
Trump to personally protest events surrounding the Jan. 20 inauguration
in Washington, D.C.

Moore added Democrats needed fresh leadership after losing to Trump,
pointing to Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a candidate for chairman of
the Democratic National Committee, as a good starting point.

"Here’s what the old guard gave us: TWICE in 16 years the Democratic
candidate WON the [popular] vote for president but LOST the White
House," he said. "Incredible! This has got to stop!"

"[Ellison] is the future and everyone else is the past," Moore added.
"He will fight to turn this around and, as a son of the Midwest, bring
that part of the country back from the dark side."

Moore concluded that Americans frustrated with establishment politicians
could personally run for office against Trump and his allies.

"It’s time to stop carping about politicians and become one. But a
different kind of one! We have no choice. We’ve left it to others — yes,
Democrats — and they are inept and continual losers. Haven’t you had
enough? Run for office, any office!"

(3) Gloria Steinem to march in Trump inauguration protest, vows "we will
organize"
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/312064-feminist-icon-gloria-steinem-to-march-in-womens-protest-after

Feminist icon Gloria Steinem to march in Trump inauguration protest

BY JENNIFER CALFAS - 12/28/16 08:06 PM EST

Feminist leader Gloria Steinem will help lead a major women’s protest
following President-elect  ’s inauguration.Donald Trump

Steinem will participate in the women’s anti-Trump march after the
inauguration on Jan. 21.

Steinem was named one of the march’s honorary co-chairs, alongside Harry
Belafonte. Steinem made the announcement in an Instagram post on Tuesday.

"Proud to announce my role as honorary co-chair of the Women's March on
Washington. See you there?" she wrote in the post.

The protest, called the Women’s March on Washington, is slated to have
thousands of participants and will take place in Washington, D.C.

Plans for the demonstration were created just after Trump was elected
president on Nov. 8.

Steinem was a strong supporter of Democratic nominee  .Hillary Clinton

She came under fire during the primaries when she suggested that young
women who supported Clinton's challenger only liked him to attract men.
She later apologized for the comment.Bernie Sanders

After Trump's win, Steinem wrote in an op-ed: "We will not mourn, we
will organize."

(4) Trump plays Zionists against Liberal (Green Left) Jews - Israel Shamir

From: "israel shamir israel.shamir@gmail.com [shamireaders]"
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 21:36:40 +0300
Subject: [shamireaders] Christmas Surprise by Israel Shamir

Christmas Surprise

By Israel Shamir

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/christmas-surprise/

I promised you Christmas wouldn’t be dull! In a surprising move, for the
first time in 40 years, the US voted in the UN Security Council against
official Tel Aviv’s wishes. The miracle friends of Palestine and
progressive Israelis prayed for – occurred, after all. This is one of
the first benefits of Donald Trump’s victory – the long stretch of
American subservience to Jews has been broken. Yes, it was done by Obama
administration – but this wouldn’t have happened if Ms Clinton were the
President-Elect.

For 40 years the US vetoed every UNSC resolution potentially limiting
Israel’s unalienable right to treat its goyim the way it desires, inter
alia, stealing their land and settling Jews in the stolen property.
(This was in line with Jewish traditional vision that gentiles have no
rights in general, like a cat has no right to its cushion or a horse to
its stable; they keep it only as long as it suits the man.) The world
community gnashed their teeth, Israeli mirth bordered with glee, but the
US remained steadfast on its defence of Israel.

In 2011 this very President Obama vetoed a resolution practically
identical to the one he permitted to pass now. Since then Obama gave
Israel $38 billion of military help. What changed now? Why this time
Obama decided his Israeli nemesis deserves some harsh treatment?

The New York Times explained this by freedom of his approaching
retirement. Like the kids the last day of school before summer vacation
feel free to prank and settle accounts, the exiting politicians tend to
unload their chests, often about Jews they were forced to bear with,
tolerate or venerate.

The Malaysian leader Mohammad Mahathir waited until his last day in
office in 2003 to say the Jews have now gained control of the most
powerful countries and rule the world by proxy. Jimmy Carter and George
Bush Senior did not wait: they acted to limit insatiable Israeli
appetites in the first term at office, and failed to get re-elected.
Obama ran two full terms and now he is free to frolic for a while.

This may explain the timing, but not the feeling. Nothing annoys a
powerful man more than the need to kowtow to an obscure power. Not to a
king but to somebody who has no army. The church had annoyed many
rulers; the Jews are a greater nuisance. Never so much trouble from so
few, said a friend. Many people hope for their fall. Even very cautious
politicians and statesmen would rejoice if these arrogant people were
cut down to size.

For a US president, the frustration should be hard to bear. He,
ostensibly the most powerful man on earth, has been humiliated many
times by Israelis. When he visited Israel, the chief rabbi Obadiah
Youssef said he should kiss feet of Jews who permitted him to come
hither. His proposals for a rather fair settlement of Palestinian
problem were rudely rejected and his own Congress received Netanyahu
with such panache as he was rarely if ever granted.

What is the mundane source of Israel’s power? Now, as in 1917, it is
American Jews’ ability to influence American public opinion via their
media machine. This is what the Jews said to Lord Balfour in 1917,
asking him to promise Palestine to Jews and in return they would pull
the US into WWI. In no other country the Jews are that powerful as in
the US, and wherever they are powerful – they are powerful because of
America’s support and insistence. This should be another source of
frustration for an American president.

And now the Jews failed Obama and Hillary Clinton whom he supported.
They failed to deliver American public opinion. They tried, they
activated all their media, they paraded their Masters of Discourse, and
still they failed. Trump deftly used the crack between liberal Jews and
Zionists and avoided being called The Enemy of Jews, as the powerful ADL
insisted. After the election, President-elect Trump had set
<http://www.unz.com/ishamir/trump-sets-the-cat-among-the-jewish-pigeons/>
the cat among the pigeons by nominating Mr Friedman as the US ambassador
in the Israel. He turned the crack between liberal Jews and hard Zionist
Jews into a war.

"Hell just froze over,
<http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/article-saying-zionism/?utm> reported
Mondoweiss, a progressive Jewish site: The New York Times runs an
article saying Zionism is racist". Liberal Zionist Jews of America have
been called to choose: are they with racism and Zionism, or with liberal
values.

The European Far Right used this trick of appealing to Zionists against
liberal Jews for years. Breivik the Norwegian mass murderer promoted it,
too. European Far Right parties that refused to play with Zionists and
Liberal Jews found themselves in the cold with zero media coverage.

Now a similar scheme had been used by the Brits – they gave Jews the
thing they wanted, namely Theresa May announced that she decided to
accept the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)
definition of antisemitism and to integrate it into British law, and in
the same time they facilitated the US abstention by making the text
palatable for Obama.

The Russians did it, too: they took over the TV channels from the Jewish
oligarchs, removed them from power, but cozied up to Chabad
fundamentalists and to Netanyahu.

The world will set itself free of Jewish hegemony, but this complicated
transition calls for using one bunch of Jews against another one. Or so
the politicians feel. However, the moment of freedom is approaching. As
the US hegemony declines, the Jewish one follows it into decline. Trump
won though the Jewish media, Masters of Discourse were against him. This
lesson will be learned by politicians, and implemented.

Israeli behaviour contributed a lot to the change. The white people like
fair play: they gave full rights to Jews and blacks though it was not to
their advantage. But the Jews do not care for the fairness, just for the
bottom line. Their mistreatment of Palestinians exceeded every limit of
tolerance. They could relinquish Palestine altogether and live well on
78% of its territory they got by means fair and foul. They could have
the Two States’ Solution, where Palestinian state has no control over
its borders, skies, water or military, but still has a flag and a
national anthem.

Or, if they want the whole land of Palestine, they should treat
Palestinians fairly, give them rights in one state, instead of slowly
planting more Jewish colonies on the stolen Palestinian land while
claiming to pursue Two States track. But the Jews preferred to have
their cake and eat it. Such a trick may work for a while, but not
forever, and thus Zionists learned the limits of their power.

The drama of the UNSC vote deserves to be sung. Egypt tabled the draft,
and it came under the pressure of Israel. General Sisi is rather weak
ruler; he came to power through a military coup; he is not very popular
and is susceptible to pressure. Netanyahu asked Trump to give Sisi a
talk; so he did. Trump is worried his adversaries will play some nasty
trick on him before inauguration, and he needs some protection. Sisi
agreed to postpone the vote indefinitely. Now Obama had been properly
annoyed by Trump’s interference and by Netanyahu’s going over his head.
One President at a time, he said famously.

Four states picked up the motion dropped by Egypt. New Zealand had been
threatened by Netanyahu who promised "war", recall of his ambassador and
removing the embassy. But New Zealand did not budge an inch. They
already sorted the matter out with England, and Netanyahu’s threats were
just so much of hot air for them. A few years ago, they already had sent
the Israeli ambassador packing home after it transpired Israeli Mossad
assassins were equipped with phony NZ passports.

The motion has been tabled again. Netanyahu called Putin in despair.
Putin was very friendly and promised to do what he can. The Russian man
in the UN, Vitally Churkin, indeed tried to postpone the vote until
after Christmas, or after Trump’s inauguration, but nobody else agreed
with him. So he voted for the motion.

He could not do else: as a member of the Quartet, Russia is a strong and
generous supporter of Palestine, and she is an historic protector of
Palestinians. Until recently Russia did not recognise Israeli conquests
of 1948, and that includes West Jerusalem. In the Russian maps, the
borders of Israel are the 1947 Partition plan demarcation lines, 7000
square km less then 1949 Green line. Israelis underestimated Russian
moral and religious fibre.

A day earlier, Israel’s representative stayed away from the vote on
Syria in the UN General Assembly, in order to please Putin. So Netanyahu
expected quid pro quo, but Putin preferred not to endanger the Russian
well-deserved and hard-earned reputation as the protector of Palestine
and Syria. The Russian president is a rational man. He wants to be
friends with Israel for many reasons, but not for any price: he is not
Sisi, nor sissy. Besides, Netanyahu did not hesitate to bomb Damascus
airport and Syrian army units, Russia’s allies. Putin did not fight
back, but he remembered that.

Now Netanyahu is in hysterics; he threatens the world with diplomatic
war and attacks the PNA. In a frenzy, he called Ambassadors of UNSC
member states to come to his Foreign Office on Christmas Day, as in the
case of war. He still did not get that he had lost. Israel and its
policy towards Palestinians are greatly disliked by entire world for
they are arrogant and unfair.

Netanyahu hopes Trump will change everything back into his favour. I
doubt it. Now Trump feels he needs Jewish support, but after
inauguration? He’ll see its cost may be too high. Trump will probably
play it like Putin: being friendly but minding his own business.

And truly angered Obama has one more shot, on January 15, 2017, when the
French program may internationalise the peace talks. This is a big
danger for Netanyahu and his far right.

It appears the Jews greatly overestimated their real punching weight.
They fell to believe in the Protocols as in their charter of power,
while it was just a story. And such stories have a shelf life and
validity date.

Israel Shamir can be reached at
<mailto:adam@israelshamir.net>adam@israelshamir.net

This article was first published at
<http://www.unz.com/ishamir/christmas-surprise/>The Unz Review.

(5) Trump the disappearing "Neutral Guy" on the Mideast crisis
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/trump-goes-all-the-settlers-18850
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/24/trumps-disappearing-neutral-guy/

Trump Goes All In With the Settlers

Paul R. Pillar

December 23, 2016

Presidents-elect of the United States generally have hewn to the dictum
that the country has only one president at a time, and that this is
especially important with foreign policy.  The incoming president plans,
appoints, announces, and does anything else he wants to indicate what
his course will be after noon on January 20th, but until then it is the
incumbent president who makes and executes U.S. policy and who
negotiates with and makes demarches to foreign governments.  Donald
Trump has been behaving differently.  But even some of his previous
moves during this current transition period, such as breaking with
protocol on relations with Taiwan or telling the Chinese to keep the
marine drone they stole, did not go as far in interfering with the
execution of current policy as he now has gone regarding a United
Nations Security Council on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and matters
in the occupied territories.

It is not only that Trump issued a statement that constituted an attempt
to pressure the current administration into a course of action that
would do the bidding of a foreign government.  His operation met with a
delegation organized by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, so
secretly that Israeli press that learned of the visit describes it as
"clandestine".  Trump also, following Netanyahu’s lead, pressed
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt to withdraw the UN  resolution
that his country had introduced.

Even just as a matter of procedure, this violation of the
one-president-at-a-time principle ought to have provoked outrage. That
it did not provoke much may be due to Trump’s mastery of the art of
diverting attention from a subject by quickly saying something else that
is at least as likely to grab headlines.  In this case the attention
diverter was Trump’s comment about starting a new nuclear arms race.

As a matter of substance, Trump’s posture toward the UN resolution
should be occasion for deep dismay.  Long forgotten is his promise to be
a "neutral guy" in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since he
made that pledge he has come to terms with Sheldon Adelson and, through
other statements and appointments, has made clear that he will be
anything but neutral.  In case there was any remaining doubt about that
as of a couple of weeks ago, all such doubt was erased with his
appointment as ambassador to Israel of bankruptcy lawyer David
Friedman—who, by his own words, including likening liberal U.S. Jews to
Nazi stooges, and by his personal connections to the settler movement,
is firmly opposed to peace and in favor of indefinite occupation.  It
would be less incredible for Friedman to become Israeli ambassador to
the United States rather than the other way around, although even then
he would be representing only an extreme right wing rather than the
people and interests of Israel as a whole.

As for the newest UN resolution, Trump’s statement, echoing a familiar
formulation that the Netanyahu government uses whenever the possibility
of Security Council action arises, says that "peace between the Israelis
and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between
the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United
Nations."  There is absolutely nothing in the draft resolution that
Egypt had introduced that precludes or impedes direct negotiations
between the parties or that suggests in any way that such negotiations
will not still be necessary to set the terms of any final peace
agreement.  Far from "imposing" terms, the resolution declares the need
to get beyond the obstacles that are preventing effective direct
negotiations from taking place and being able to achieve a two-state
solution that will be a lasting basis for peace between Israelis and Arabs.

That the resolution specifically mentions Israeli settlements in
occupied territory simply reflects how this unilateral altering of facts
on the ground has been steadily closing the negotiation space and making
it ever more difficult for direct negotiations to set the terms of peace
and arrive at a solution with two viable and secure states.  That the
resolution declares the colonization through settlements to be a
"flagrant violation of international law" simply restates
long-established principles of international law regarding the
responsibilities of an occupying power in territory conquered through
military force.

The draft resolution was comprehensive in identifying the obstacles to
effective direct negotiations. It’s not just the settlements, and it’s
not just what Israel is doing.  The resolution "calls for immediate
steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts
of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for
accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations
under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to
combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and
to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism."  The resolution further
"calls upon both parties … to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain
from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric".

In light of all the above, Trump’s statement that the resolution "is
extremely unfair to all Israelis" is baseless.

Anyone with a concern for Israel’s security and well-being should be
aware that the continued colonization of the West Bank through expansion
of settlements does not correlate positively with such security and
well-being.  To the contrary, it detracts from Israeli security.  It
involves an added burden on the Israel Defense Forces, and it is the
most visible part of an occupation that is by far the biggest stimulus
and support for those intending to do Israel harm.

Anyone concerned with U.S. interests should be aware that the United
States has no positive interest in the settlements or in the religious
or local economic motivations that have stimulated their growth.  For
the United States, it is all negative, in terms of instability,
prospects for violence, the stimulation of extremism, and the United
States being resented and targeted because of its role in permitting the
settlement enterprise.

The combined pressure from Netanyahu and Trump got al-Sisi to withdraw
the resolution.  It is appropriate for Egypt to play a leadership role
in trying to improve the conditions for negotiation of an
Israeli-Palestinian peace, for historical reasons dating back to the
Camp David Accords of 1978.  The peace treaty with Egypt that Israel
sought was only one-half of the bargain struck at Camp David.  The other
half was supposed to be progress toward a peace covering the Palestinian
territories.  Anwar Sadat has been revolving in his grave over how,
nearly four decades later, what process there has been has failed to
yield an end to the occupation.

The case for the current resolution remains strong.  Four other members
of the Security Council—New Zealand, Malaysia, Senegal, and
Venezuela—pressed ahead with the resolution even when a bullied Egypt
backed off.  The Obama administration deserves commendation for allowing
the resolution to pass when it finally came to a vote on Friday.  A
positive vote in support would have been even better, rather than the
United States once again being in a lonely position on UN measures
involving Israel.  In this case the United States was the only one of
the fifteen Security Council members that did not vote in favor of the
resolution.  The Republican members of Congress who now are denouncing
the administration even for abstaining should be made to point to words
in the resolution itself and explain exactly what they allege is wrong
with it.  Otherwise they are just blindly following the lead of an
Israeli government that will perpetuate the occupation, and the negative
consequences that flow from it, forever.

Trump did not have to interfere with the incumbent administration’s
diplomacy.  It would give him more options to let the incumbents take
the domestic political heat for breaking the pattern of repeated
occupation-covering U.S. vetoes at the Security Council.  Even if Trump
is determined to stay in bed with the settlers and the Israeli
right-wing, he could still assume such a posture starting on January
20th, however mistaken such a posture is.

Perhaps Trump’s abandonment of his "neutral guy" moment is another
instance of his gravitating to wherever he hears the loudest applause,
with that applause coming in this instance from the lobby that would
scream the loudest if he were to move in a different direction. Perhaps
it is an instance of his being swayed by whoever in his inner circle has
most had Trump’s ear recently and been motivated to use that access to
press special interests.  That inner circle member can be the lawyer who
helped him through bankruptcies in Atlantic City. Or it could be Trump's
son-in-law, whom Trump has talked about as a Middle East envoy, who,
like the lawyer, has personal ties to West Bank settlements, and who
reportedly wrote, along with Stephen Bannon, the statement denouncing
the resolution.  Either way, this is a poor way to make U.S. foreign policy.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose
to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is author most recently of
Why America Misunderstands the World.

(6) Israeli Ambassador lambasts Obama. Obama furious that Netanyahu got
Trump to phone al-Sisi

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/12/israel-netanyahu-obama-un-security-council-resolution.html

Is Netanyahu sacrificing Israel on his crusade against Obama?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows that Israel will pay,
diplomatically and politically, for its over-the-top response to the
anti-settlement UN Security Council resolution, but it seems he doesn't
care.

Author Ben Caspit

Posted December 27, 2016

Translator Danny Wool

Top officials in the US administration, most notably Secretary of State
John Kerry, must have spent Dec. 26-27 in regret and licking their
wounds. After all, they agreed to accept the credentials of Israel’s
Ambassador to Washington Ron Dermer in 2013. Of course, this came after
an energetic campaign and a whole slew of promises by Israel and by
Dermer himself. Dermer finally persuaded Kerry to accept him (despite
his closeness with senior Republicans) over a private dinner in
Washington between just the two men and their wives. Dermer promised
Kerry the world, swearing to do everything he could to tone down Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to avoid unnecessary spats with the
White House, and to create a direct, intimate and honest channel of
communication between the president and the prime minister.

This week, that same Dermer was interviewed by at least two major
American news networks, CNN and MSNBC, in which he did everything but
curse out President Barack Obama and his advisers. His behavior was
unprecedented. It was the first time that a serving Israeli ambassador
launched a full frontal assault on an American administration still in
office, on American soil.

Dermer had all sorts of deprecating terms to describe the US
administration, including "runaway train." He claimed that Israel had
incontrovertible proof that the United States itself was behind the
initiative that led to UN Security Council Resolution 2334 against
Israel’s settlement policy Dec. 23, and that Israel would present this
evidence to President-elect Donald Trump’s staff once the new
administration takes office. Meanwhile, the United States has evidence
that Israel already presented its evidence to Trump’s staff, including
his son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Meanwhile, the Americans are furious that the Israelis already used
Trump for their own ends after the Egyptians presented the first draft
proposal of the resolution to the Security Council. They say that Trump
called Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and convinced him to
withdraw the draft. According to Israeli sources, Obama’s staff was
outraged when it realized what Israel had done. As far as administration
officials were concerned, Israel had crossed another red line, and in a
particularly brusque manner at that. The Israelis were working with the
Trump administration before it even took office. They were going over
the head and behind the back of a serving American president.

Just one day later, two other members of the UN Security Council,
Senegal and New Zealand, submitted their proposal. The United States
abstained, for the first time in Obama’s presidency, and did not veto
the resolution. Israel suffered a devastating blow. The Security Council
resolution could worsen Israel's standing in the international arena. It
was a bitter parting gift from Obama, the exact scenario that Netanyahu
worried about more than anything else over the past year — as was
described in several Al-Monitor articles.

The relationship between Washington and Jerusalem has never seen such an
extreme, belligerent low point in the modern era. And it didn’t end with
Dermer either. The ambassador’s boss, Benjamin Netanyahu, called
America’s behavior "a disgrace," going so far as to say that the
administration had stabbed Israel in the back. "They betrayed us,"
Netanyahu said, according to a senior political source who spoke with
Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. Netanyahu also told his Cabinet
that during one of his many phone calls with Kerry in the week preceding
the vote, "Friends don’t take friends to the Security Council." Yuval
Steinitz, a minister with particularly close ties to Netanyahu, said,
"The Russians would never betray an ally like that." Of course, Steinitz
never explained why he didn’t have harsh words for the Russians too,
especially since they voted for the Security Council resolution, while
the United States had just abstained.

Many in Israel, including sources in Netanyahu’s own party, believe that
the prime minister lost control — not only of himself but of the entire
situation. His behavior as a result of the Dec. 23 decision has been
described by a political source close to him (who spoke on condition of
anonymity) as "rapture of the deep," using a diving term to describe the
drunken behavior that divers experience when diving too deeply.
Netanyahu immediately set off on a campaign to punish the offenders,
calling Israel’s ambassadors to Senegal and New Zealand back home for
consultations. He canceled a meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa
May and a visit by the Ukrainian prime minister to Israel, instructed
his ministers to curtail their visits to countries that voted in support
of the resolution (including Britain, France, etc.), announced that his
government would no longer provide financial support for various UN
bodies and suspended in part relations with a long list of countries.
Netanyahu is acting like the leader of a major power, with the whole
world hanging on his every whim as it waits for his latest
pronouncement. In other words, he is oblivious to reality. The question
is whether he really believes in this alternative reality that he
created for himself, or whether this is some cynical, cold and
calculated political maneuver.

Conventional wisdom is that Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing. It
is a perfect imitation of what Trump did over the last year. He is
lashing out at all norms, spitting at political correctness, breaking
all the rules of the game and denigrating anyone who isn’t him.

Netanyahu knows that a criminal investigation would probably be launched
against him in the near future, as a nine-month-long police probe comes
to an end. He knows that he will need the support of his constituents,
so he is bolstering his standing among the public. The steps that he has
taken so far have been embraced enthusiastically not only by his
supporters but by the Israeli right in general. This sense of national
pride, self-confidence and fighting back with full fury was always
associated with the Israeli right. Netanyahu is simply fanning the
flames, and he is doing it in a frenzy. He knows that Israel will pay,
politically and diplomatically, for his over-the-top response, but he
simply doesn’t care.

Netanyahu gives the impression that he is enjoying every minute of this.
It seems as if his son Yair has been updating him around the clock about
the huge wave of fervent support across the various social networking
platforms, giving Netanyahu cause to proceed full steam ahead. On
Christmas Day itself, he ordered the Foreign Ministry to summon the
ambassadors of the 12 countries that voted against Israel for a dressing
down. Even popular American Ambassador Dan Shapiro was summoned to
Jerusalem — though in his case, it was for a private talk with the prime
minister himself rather than some esoteric reprimand in the Foreign
Ministry. Shapiro has seen just about everything during his term in
Israel. According to a source in his inner circle who spoke to
Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, he later said, "It was unpleasant,
but it’s part of the job."

With all of this going on, the government failed to invest its attention
or energy into discussing the actual problems resulting from the
Security Council’s resolution against the settlements. Will Israel
charge full steam ahead toward the impending iceberg? It seems as if it
will. And as it inches closer and closer, the orchestra will only turn
up the volume. The party on deck is reaching a new crescendo.

902 UNSC passes "an anti-Israel resolution, against the Jewish people and the state of the Jews" - Israeli Energy Minister

UNSC passes "an anti-Israel resolution, against the Jewish people and
the state of the Jews" - Israeli Energy Minister

Newsletter published on 26 December 2016

(1) UNSC passes "an anti-Israel resolution, against the Jewish people
and the state of the Jews" - Israeli Energy Minister
(2) Zionist Organization of America brands UNSC Resolution "anti-Semitic"
(3) J Street welcomes the resolution; AIPAC 'deeply disturbed' by
Obama's failure to veto
(4) Netanyahu & Trump pressured Egypt to withdraw resolution; then other
countries put it
(5) Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish organizations condems the
Resolution
(6) Sen. Chuck Schumer & World Jewish Congress urged a Veto
(7) AIPAC & the Jewish Council for Public Affairs urged Obama to Veto
the Resolution
(8) Israel ends aid programs, orders ambassadors home after UNSC
condemnation of settlements
(9) Israel reconsiders its U.N. membership & funding after Settlement
resolution
(10) Obama branded a Jew hating anti-Semite after UN Resolution

(1) UNSC passes "an anti-Israel resolution, against the Jewish people
and the state of the Jews" - Israeli Energy Minister
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-24/us-rebukes-israel-and-allows-un-condemnation-of-settlements/8146442

US rebukes Israel and allows UN condemnation of settlements

The Obama administration has allowed the UN Security Council to adopt a
resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlements, defying pressure
from US President-elect Donald Trump as well as Israel and several US
senators who urged Washington to use its veto.

Key points:

     The UN votes in favour of resolution calling for the end of Israeli
settlements condemning them as having "no legal validity"

     14 of the 15 member states voted in favour, US abstained from voting

     Israeli Energy Minister says the US "has abandoned its only friend
in the Middle East"

The resolution was put forward at the 15-member council for a vote on
Friday by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal a day after Egypt
withdrew it under pressure from Israel and Mr Trump. Israel and Mr Trump
had called on the United States to veto the measure.

It was adopted with 14 votes in favour, to a round of applause. It is
the first resolution the Security Council has adopted on Israel and the
Palestinians in nearly eight years.

The US decision to abstain was a relatively rare step by Washington,
which usually shields Israel from such action.

The US abstention was seen as a parting shot at policy by US President
Barack Obama, who has had an acrimonious relationship with Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and who has made settlements a major target
of peace efforts that have proven ultimately futile.

The resolution demanded that Israel "immediately and completely cease
all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory,
including East Jerusalem" and said the establishment of settlements by
Israel had "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under
international law".

'US has abandoned Israel'

Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz responded saying the US had
abandoned Israel by abstaining.

"This is not a resolution against settlements, it is an anti-Israel
resolution, against the Jewish people and the state of the Jews. The
United States tonight has simply abandoned its only friend in the Middle
East," Mr Steinitz, who is close to Mr Netanyahu, told local media.

Mr Trump tweeted shortly after the decision, addressing the UN. External
Link: @realDonaldTrump: "As to the UN, things will be different after
Jan 20th"

A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the resolution
was a blow to Israeli policy.

"The Security Council resolution is a big blow to Israeli policy, a
unanimous international condemnation of settlements and a strong support
for the two-state solution," spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah said in a
statement.

Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat said an end to Israeli
settlements marked "a day of victory".

"This is a day of victory for international law, a victory for civilized
language and negotiation and a total rejection of extremist forces in
Israel," he told Reuters.

A resolution needs nine votes in favour and no vetoes by the United
States, France, Russia, Britain or China to be adopted.

The Palestinians want an independent state in the West Bank, Gaza and
East Jerusalem, areas Israel captured in a 1967 war.

Israel disputes that settlements are illegal and says their final status
should be determined in talks on Palestinian statehood. The last round
of US-led peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians collapsed in
2014.

The passage of the resolution changes nothing on the ground between
Israel and the Palestinians and likely will be all but ignored by the
incoming Trump administration.

More than a symbolic move

The resolution formally enshrined the international community's
disapproval of Israeli settlement building and could spur further
Palestinian moves against Israel in international forums.

Mr Trump, who called for a veto along with Mr Netanyahu, is likely to be
a more staunch supporter of Mr Netanyahu's right-wing policies. He named
a hardline pro-Israel ambassador and vowed to move the US Embassy from
Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

A senior Israeli official said on Thursday if adopted there was "zero
chance" the Israeli Government would abide by the measure.

Under the UN Charter, UN member states "agree to accept and carry out
the decisions of the Security Council".

"It was to be expected that Israel's greatest ally would act in
accordance with the values that we share and that they would have vetoed
this disgraceful resolution," Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny
Danon, said after the vote.

"I have no doubt that the new US administration and the incoming UN
secretary-general will usher in a new era in terms of the UN's
relationship with Israel."

Wires

(2) Zionist Organization of America brands UNSC Resolution "anti-Semitic"
http://zoa.org/2016/12/10346745-zoa-urges-veto-of-disgraceful-anti-israel-un-resolution-on-jewish-communities-2/

ZOA Urges Veto of Disgraceful Anti-Israel UN Resolution on Jewish
Communities

December 22, 2016

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein issued
the following urgent statement:

ZOA urges President Obama and UN Ambassador Samantha Power to veto the
(now postponed) anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-peace, racist resolution
that the UN Security Council (UNSC) had initially planned to vote on
today.   The proposed resolution would make all of the Jewish
communities in Judea/Samaria and eastern Jerusalem in the lawful,
millennia-old Jewish homeland suddenly "have no legal validity" and "a
flagrant violation" of international law; would require Israel to halt
construction in these areas; makes false statements about international
law; falsely claims that these Jewish communities are a "major
obstacle"; calls on all nations to discriminate against Jewish
communities in Judea/Samaria and eastern Jerusalem; and would require
Israel to return to indefensible 1949 Armistice lines (misleadingly
called "1967 borders").

ZOA praises President-elect Donald Trump for condemning the anti-Israel
UNSC resolution, and the President-elect’s nominee for U.S. Ambassador
to Israel David Friedman for working relentlessly to try to stop this
anti-Israel resolution.

For the following reasons, the proposed resolution must be vetoed – and
Congress and President-elect Trump should declare that they will end all
funding to the UN and Palestinian Authority ("PA") if the resolution
comes to a vote and passes:

   The proposed resolution drastically changes U.S. policy and harms the
peaceful transition to the new U.S. administration: Failing to veto the
proposed resolution would dramatically change and destabilize U.S. and
international law and policy, and thus would violate President Obama’s
pledge to assure a peaceful transition to the incoming Trump
administration.

As Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon accurately said, the proposed
UNSC resolution "will do nothing to promote a diplomatic process, and
will only reward the Palestinian policy of incitement and terror."

As liberal Democrat Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz noted when a
similar resolution was proposed in 2011:  "the real reason the U.S.
should veto this ill-conceived resolution is that it is inconsistent
with U.S. policy, which has long advocated a negotiated resolution of
the Palestinian-Israeli dispute."  ("The U.N. Gangs Up On Israel –
Again," by Alan Dershowitz, Wall Street J’nal, Jan. 26, 2011.) [...]

(3) J Street welcomes the resolution; AIPAC 'deeply disturbed' by
Obama's failure to veto

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/.premium-1.761051

Monday, December 26, 2016.

UNSC Resolution on Israeli Settlements Sends Shockwaves Through U.S.
Jewish Community

J Street welcomes the resolution, which 'reaffirms the need for a
two-state solution'; AIPAC 'deeply disturbed' by Obama's failure to veto
motion; ZOA president: Trump may reconsider UN funding.

   Dec 24, 2016 8:12 PM Taly Krupkin (New York)

The UN Security Council resolution against the Israeli settlements sent
waves of surprise and shock through American Jewish organizations across
the ...

"By supporting this anti-Semitic and racist resolution he has shown that
he supports the Hamas-Abbas terrorist authority. And has sympathy and [...]

{can someone please send me the full article? - Ed.}

(4) Netanyahu & Trump pressured Egypt to withdraw resolution; then other
countries put it

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/world/middleeast/israel-settlements-un-vote.html

U.S. Abstains as U.N. Security Council Votes to Condemn Israeli Settlements

By SOMINI SENGUPTA and RICK GLADSTONEDEC. 23, 2016

UNITED NATIONS — Defying extraordinary pressure from President-elect
Donald J. Trump and furious lobbying by Israel, the Obama administration
on Friday allowed the United Nations Security Council to adopt a
resolution that condemned Israeli settlement construction.

The administration’s decision not to veto the measure broke a
longstanding American policy of serving as Israel’s sturdiest diplomatic
shield at the United Nations.

While the measure will have no practical impact on the ground, it was
regarded as a major rebuff to Israel that could increase its isolation
over the paralyzed peace process with the Palestinians, who have sought
to establish their own state on territory held by Israel.

Applause broke out in the 15-member Security Council’s chambers
following the vote on the measure, which passed 14-0, with the United
States abstaining.

The vote came a day after Mr. Trump personally intervened to keep the
measure, proposed by Egypt, from coming up for a vote on Thursday, as
scheduled. Mr. Trump’s aides said he had spoken to the Israeli prime
minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Both men also spoke to the Egyptian
president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Egypt postponed the vote.

But in a show of mounting frustration, four other countries on the
Security Council — Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela — all of
them relatively powerless temporary members with rotating two-year
seats, snatched the resolution away from Egypt and put it up for a vote
Friday afternoon.

The departing Obama administration has been highly critical of Israel’s
settlement building, describing it as an impediment to a two-state
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Trump has made clear
that he will take a far more sympathetic approach to Israel when his
administration assumes office in a month. Photo Construction at an
Israeli settlement in the West Bank in 2015. Credit Tomas Munita for The
New York Times

Mr. Trump’s comments on the issue amounted to his most direct
intervention on United States foreign policy during his transition to power.

The United States ambassador, Samantha Power, portrayed the abstention
as consistent with the American disapproval of settlement-building, but
she also criticized countries at the United Nations for treating Israel
unfairly. She said the United States remained committed to its
"steadfast support" for Israel and reminded the council that Israel
received an enormous amount of American military aid.

Ms. Power said the United States chose not to veto the resolution, as it
had done to a similar measure under Mr. Obama in 2011, because
settlement building had accelerated so much that it had put the
two-state solution in jeopardy, and because the peace process had gone
nowhere.

"Today the Security Council reaffirmed its established consensus that
settlements have no legal validity," she said. "The United States has
been sending a message that settlements must stop privately and publicly
for nearly five decades."

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, who had urged
the American delegation to block the measure, expressed his
disappointment in a statement that looked forward to a change in policy
under Mr. Trump.

"It was to be expected that Israel’s greatest ally would act in
accordance with the values that we share and that they would have vetoed
this disgraceful resolution," he said.

The resolution condemned Israeli housing construction in East Jerusalem
and the occupied West Bank as a "flagrant violation under international
law" that was "dangerously imperiling the viability" of a future peace
settlement establishing a Palestinian state.

The resolution also includes a nod to Israel and its backers by
condemning "all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of
terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction."
That language is diplomatic scolding aimed at Palestinian leaders, whom
Israel accuses of encouraging attacks on Israeli civilians.

(5) Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish organizations condems the
Resolution
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/UN-Security-Council-passes-anti-settlement-resolution-US-abstains-476360

UN Security Council passes anti-settlement resolution, US abstains

By DANIELLE ZIRI

12/23/2016 21:24

It is the first resolution the Security Council has adopted on Israel
and the Palestinians in nearly eight years. (U.N. Security Council
passes resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlement building)

NEW YORK - The United Nations Security Council voted on Friday to adopt
a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity as illegal, and
demanding that Israel "immediately and completely cease all settlement
activities in the 'occupied' Palestinian territory, including east
Jerusalem".

Fourteen out of the 15 voting members of the Council voted in favor of
the resolution, none voted against it, and the United States chose to
abstain instead of casting its veto on the initiative.

The vote was originally scheduled to take place on Thursday, but in a
dramatic turn of events, Egypt, which had introduced the draft
resolution, withdrew it just hours before it was due to be considered at
the Security Council, as President-elect Donald Trump came out squarely
against it, saying the resolution "should be vetoed"

"As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis
and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between
the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United
Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position, and is
extremely unfair to all Israelis," Trump said in a statement.

For several months, as the possibility of an anti-settlement resolution
was being discussed, the question remained whether or not President
Barack Obama – an ardent opponent of the settlements – will use the US
veto in the Security Council to shield Israel from it. In the days
before the vote, there was a sense in Jerusalem that he would not do so.

That sense was broadcast by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who
tweeted on Thursday that "the US should veto the anti-Israel
resolution," and issued an even sharper statement again just before the
Egyptians announced that they were pulling back the resolution.

"Israelis deeply appreciate one of the great pillars of the US-Israel
alliance: the willingness over many years for the US to stand up in the
UN and veto anti-Israel resolutions," he said. "I hope the US won’t
abandon this policy; I hope it will abide by the principles set by
President Obama himself in his speech in the UN in 2011: that peace will
come not through UN resolutions, but only through direct negotiations
between the parties."

In her speech to the Council following the vote, US Ambassador to the UN
Samantha Power justified the US decision by explaining that it is in
line with the bipartisan US views regarding the settlements for decades.

However, she explained the US isn’t supporting the text because it
focuses "too narrowly" on settlements, maintaining that if every single
settlement dismantled, it would still not guarantee peace.

Power also spoke of Benjamin Netanyahu’s statements in favor of the
settlements, but also of the two state solution saying they are
"irreconcilable".

"One has to make a choice between settlements and separation," she said.

However, she said, Friday’s vote was "not straightforward" for the US
because of its venue, the United Nations.

"For as long as Israel has been a member of UN, it has been treated
differently," she told the Council.

Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon responded harshly
to the American decision and stated that "neither the Security Council
nor UNESCO can sever the tie between the people of Israel and the land
of Israel."

"It was to be expected that Israel's greatest ally would act in
accordance with the values that we share and that they would have vetoed
this disgraceful resolution," he said. "I have no doubt that the new US
administration and the incoming UN Secretary General will usher in a new
era in terms of the UN's relationship with Israel."

During his speech to the Security Council, Danon pointed fingers at the
member states.

"This is a dark day for this Council," he said. "The resolution you just
voted on is the peak of hypocrisy. While thousands are being massacred
in Syria, this Council wasted valuable time and efforts, condemning the
democratic State of Israel for building homes in the historic homeland
of the Jewish people."

"By voting yes in favor of this resolution, you have in fact voted no,"
he continued. "you voted no to negotiations, you voted no to progress
and a chance for better lives for Israelis and Palestinians, and you
voted no to the possibility of peace."

Danon also called on the Council to "take this opportunity to turn a new
page, put an end to the bias and obsession with Israel, stop this
endless attempt to blame all the problems of the Middle East, on the one
true democracy in the region."

Following Friday’s outcome, many Jewish Organizations from across the
political spectrum, who had strongly pushed and advocated for the US to
veto the resolution, also expressed their disappointment that the US
chose to abstain.

The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish organizations said it
deeply regrets and rejects the US move.

"There is no justification or explanation that validates the United
States failure to veto the one-sided, offensive resolution adopted by
the Security Council today," the organization wrote. "The United States
vote will be seen as a betrayal of the fundamentals of the special
relationship that will nevertheless continue to mark the close ties
between the peoples of the two countries."

The American Jewish Council CEO David Harris too said he is "deeply
disappointed that the United States chose to abstain on a UN Security
Council resolution today which singled out Israel for condemnation."

"The Administration’s decision, for the first time in eight years, not
to block an anti-Israel measure at the UN Security Council is profoundly
disturbing," he said. "It only encourages diplomatic end-runs and
diversionary tactics, which hinder rather than advance the prospects for
peace."

"Moreover, this measure repeats the Palestinian falsehood that Israeli
settlements constitute the core of the conflict," Harris added. "Let’s
be clear: The chief obstacle to achieving peace is, and long has been,
the steadfast refusal of the Palestinian leadership to recognize
Israel’s legitimacy and negotiate in earnest a comprehensive agreement.
Security Council members that supported the resolution are not helping
the cause of peace by their failure to hold the Palestinians accountable
for their chronic short-sightedness and inaction."

Herb Keinon and Reuters contributed to this report.

(6) Sen. Chuck Schumer & World Jewish Congress urged a Veto

http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/358205/sen-chuck-schumer-world-jewish-congress-urge-veto-of-un-anti-settlement-res/

Sen. Chuck Schumer, World Jewish Congress Urge Veto of UN
Anti-Settlement Resolution

Cnaan Liphshiz

December 23, 2016

(JTA) — The World Jewish Congress joined calls by lawmakers in Israel
and the United States, including incoming Senate Minority Leader Charles
Schumer, urging the Obama administration to veto an anti-settlement
resolution at the U.N. Security Council.

The WJC statement Friday by its president, Ronald Lauder, followed
vigorous lobbying for a veto in Jerusalem and by President-elect Donald
Trump on Thursday and Friday. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu called on President Barack Obama to veto the draft resolution
submitted by Egypt in coordination with the Palestinians, which called
settlements "a flagrant violation of international law" that damaged the
prospects of two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Following a telephone conversation between Trump and Egyptian President
Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt put the draft resolution on hold. But four
Security Council member states, New Zealand, Venezuela, Malaysia and
Senegal, said they would submit their own draft resolution amid
speculation that Obama intended to let it pass if brought to a vote Friday.

"We urge the United States, Israel’s greatest ally, to veto this text,"
Lauder wrote in reference to the later draft. "It is counterproductive,
and does nothing to enhance the role of the United Nations in resolving
the Middle East conflict."

Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement Friday that he spoke directly with
the administration several times, as recently as that morning, "and in
the strongest terms possible urged them to veto this resolution."

"Whatever one’s views are on settlements, anyone who cares about the
future of Israel and peace in the region knows that the U.N., with its
one sidedness, is exactly the wrong forum to bring about peace," he wrote.

The junior senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, also a Democrat,
wrote in a statement: "I call on the Administration to do everything in
its power to make sure this resolution is not put forward or passed."

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., wrote in a statement sent out by his office:
"Unilateral resolutions of this kind do not advance the cause of peace,
and I would urge the Administration to make every effort to oppose its
being brought forward and make it clear that it will veto the measure if
necessary."

Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., backed the veto calls, adding he would work in a
bipartisan fashion to reduce U.S. funding to the United Nations should
the draft resolution pass.

According to The Times of Israel, Israeli officials were furious that
the Obama administration allegedly was going to allow the vote to pass.
The news site quoted someone described as "an Israeli official" as
saying: "President Obama and Secretary [of State John] Kerry are behind
this shameful move against Israel at the U.N."

Neither Trump’s team nor Egyptian officials would reveal the contents of
the talk between the president-elect and al-Sisi. Both Trump and
Netanyahu took to social networks to call for a U.S. veto.

On Facebook, Trump wrote that the Egyptian draft resolution should be
vetoed.

"As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis
and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between
the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United
Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is
extremely unfair to all Israelis," he wrote.

And Netanyahu wrote on Twitter: "The U.S. should veto the anti-Israel
resolution at the U.N. Security Council on Thursday," referring to the
Egyptian text. It was an unusually public appeal regarding an issue that
is usually coordinated between the two allies behind closed doors,
suggesting that Netanyahu was not certain that the United States under
Obama would indeed veto.

Israel approached the Trump campaign after it felt that it had failed to
persuade the Obama administration to veto the planned vote, an Israeli
official told CNN. The official said that Israel "implored the White
House not to go ahead and told them that if they did, we would have no
choice but to reach out to President-elect Trump."

The United States has long complained of anti-Israel bias at the United
Nations.

Under Obama, Washington also publicly criticized Israeli construction in
the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem and all other lands captured by Israel
in 1967 as detrimental to the two-state solution for the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

(7) AIPAC & the Jewish Council for Public Affairs urged Obama to Veto
the Resolution
http://www.jta.org/2016/12/23/news-opinion/united-states/world-jewish-congress-more-us-lawmakers-join-call-for-veto-of-un-anti-settlement-resolution

Call for veto of UN anti-settlement resolution grows stronger

December 23, 2016 1:10pm

(JTA) — A growing list of Jewish groups and U.S. lawmakers joined the
call urging the Obama administration to veto an anti-settlement
resolution at the U.N. Security Council.

The World Jewish Congress, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs joined incoming Senate
Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and other lawmakers in urging
the administration to veto the resolution expected to come up for a vote
on Friday afternoon.

The resolution, which calls Israeli settlements "a flagrant violation of
international law" that damage the prospects of a two-state solution to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was introduced by Egypt in
coordination with the Palestinians. Amid growing pressure from Israel
and President-elect Donald Trump, Egypt put the resolution on hold on
Thursday. On Friday, four Security Council member states — New Zealand,
Venezuela, Malaysia and Senegal — said they would submit their own draft
resolution amid speculation that President Barack Obama intended to let
it pass.

"We urge the United States, Israel’s greatest ally, to veto this text,"
World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder said in a statement
Friday. "It is counterproductive, and does nothing to enhance the role
of the United Nations in resolving the Middle East conflict."

Schumer said in a statement Friday that he spoke directly with the
administration several times, as recently as that morning, "and in the
strongest terms possible urged them to veto this resolution."

"Whatever one’s views are on settlements, anyone who cares about the
future of Israel and peace in the region knows that the U.N., with its
one sidedness, is exactly the wrong forum to bring about peace," he wrote.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Jewish Council for
Public Affairs both released statements Friday urging the administration
to veto the resolution.

"All those who support a peaceful resolution to the conflict should
oppose this resolution," said David Bernstein, JCPA’s president. "If the
Palestinians feel that the UN will deliver Israel for them, why would
they negotiate?"

The junior senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, also a Democrat,
wrote in a statement: "I call on the Administration to do everything in
its power to make sure this resolution is not put forward or passed."

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., wrote in a statement sent out by his office:
"Unilateral resolutions of this kind do not advance the cause of peace,
and I would urge the Administration to make every effort to oppose its
being brought forward and make it clear that it will veto the measure if
necessary."

Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., backed the veto calls, adding he would work in a
bipartisan fashion to reduce U.S. funding to the United Nations should
the draft resolution pass. [...]

(8) Israel ends aid programs, orders ambassadors home after UNSC
condemnation of settlements

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-24/israel-ends-aid-programs-after-un-security-council-vote/8146840

Israel's Prime Minister has taken diplomatic action against the
countries that co-sponsored a UN Security Council resolution condemning
Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Key points

     Benjamin Netanyahu cancels aid to co-sponsors of Security Council
resolution

     Resolution condemns Israeli settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem

     Donald Trump promises 'things will be different' when he takes office

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office announced the steps a few
hours after the United States broke with past practice and chose not to
veto the measure.

The resolution was put forward at the 15-member council for a vote by
New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal a day after Egypt withdrew
it under pressure from Israel and President-elect Donald Trump, who
pushed for a veto.

The resolution demanded that Israel "immediately and completely cease
all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory,
including East Jerusalem" and said the establishment of settlements by
Israel had "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under
international law".

Mr Netanyahu ordered Israel's ambassadors in New Zealand and Senegal to
immediately return home for consultations.

He also instructed the Foreign Ministry to end all aid programs for
Senegal and to cancel a planned visit to Israel by the Senegalese
foreign minister.

Shortly after the measures were announced, Israel's UN ambassador called
the Security Council's vote "a victory for terror".

Danny Danon told the council after the 14-0 vote the resolution was full
of "lies" and will be added "to the long and shameful list of
anti-Israel UN resolutions".

"By voting 'yes' in favour of this resolution, you have in fact voted
'no'. You voted 'no' to negotiations. You voted 'no' to progress, and a
chance for better lives for Israelis and Palestinians. And you voted
'no' to the possibility of peace," he said.

New era for Israel's relations with US, UN?

Under the UN Charter, UN member states "agree to accept and carry out
the decisions of the Security Council".

Mr Danon said the council was "sending a message to the Palestinians
that they should continue on the path of terrorism and incitement".

     "I have no doubt that the new US administration and the incoming UN
secretary-general will usher in a new era in terms of the UN's
relationship with Israel," he said.

Mr Danon urged incoming UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to make
clear to the Palestinians the only way forward is "to end incitement and
terror and to enter meaningful negotiations with Israel".

Mr Guterres takes office January 1, replacing incumbent Ban Ki-moon.

Mr Ban called the resolution a "significant step" to reconfirm the
vision of a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

He said the vote demonstrated the Security Council's "much needed
leadership and the international community's collective efforts" that
are critical to demonstrate a two-state solution where Israel and the
Palestinians live side by side in peace "is still achievable".

But Mr Netanyahu said, "at a time when the Security Council does nothing
to stop the slaughter of half a million people in Syria, it
disgracefully gangs up on the one true democracy in the Middle East,
Israel, and calls the Western Wall 'occupied territory'".

The US abstention was seen as a parting shot at policy by US President
Barack Obama, who has made settlements a major target of peace efforts
that have ultimately failed.

Shortly after the vote Mr Trump tweeted "things will be different" with
the UN after his inauguration.

Mr Trump is likely to be a more staunch supporter of Mr Netanyahu's
right-wing policies. He named a hard-line pro-Israel ambassador and
vowed to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Palestinian UN ambassador Riyad Mansour said the resolution "is
significant after years of paralysis" and a step toward addressing "a
70-year open wound" that has prevented peace and stability in the region.

The resolution demands an immediate halt to Israeli settlement building,
and Mr Mansour said that will require "vigilant follow-up if it is to be
meaningful, to stem further deterioration and salvage the two-state
solution from relegation to history's archives".

He urged the council to "stand firm by this decision" and "not be cowed
by negative threats or spin".

The Palestinians want an independent state in the West Bank, Gaza and
East Jerusalem, areas Israel captured in a 1967 war.

Israel disputes that settlements are illegal and says their final status
should be determined in talks on Palestinian statehood. The last round
of US-led peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians collapsed in
2014.

Wires

(9) Israel reconsiders its U.N. membership & funding after Settlement
resolution

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-un-idUSKBN14C1IV

Sat Dec 24, 2016 | 2:46pm EST

Israel to re-assess U.N. ties after settlement resolution, says Netanyahu

U.S. abstains from UN vote to end Israeli settlement building

01:40

Israel will re-assess its ties with the United Nations following the
adoption by the Security Council of a resolution demanding an end to
Israeli settlement building, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on
Saturday.

The vote was able to pass the 15-member council on Friday because the
United States broke with a long-standing approach of diplomatically
shielding Israel and did not wield its veto power as it had on many
times before - a decision that Netanyahu called "shameful".

"I instructed the Foreign Ministry to complete within a month a
re-evaluation of all our contacts with the United Nations, including the
Israeli funding of U.N. institutions and the presence of U.N.
representatives in Israel," Netanyahu said in broadcast remarks.

"I have already instructed to stop about 30 million shekels ($7.8
million) in funding to five U.N. institutions, five bodies, that are
especially hostile to Israel ... and there is more to come," he said.

The Israeli leader did not name the institutions or offer any further
details.

Defying heavy pressure from long-time ally Israel and President-elect
Donald Trump for Washington to use its veto, the United States abstained
in the Security Council decision, which passed with 14 votes in favor.

Israel for decades has pursued a policy of constructing Jewish
settlements on territory captured by Israel in a 1967 war with its Arab
neighbors including the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

Most countries view Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank and
East Jerusalem as illegal and an obstacle to peace. Israel disagrees,
citing a biblical connection to the land.

(Reporting by Ari Rabinovitch; Editing by Richard Balmforth)

(10) Obama branded a Jew hating anti-Semite after UN Resolution

http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/358231/j-street-welcomes-un-resolution-on-israel-settlements/

J Street Welcomes UN Resolution on Israel Settlements

Forward Staff and JTA

December 23, 2016

Liberal American groups welcomed the UN security council resolution on
Israeli settlements while mainstream pro-Israel groups blasted the U.S.
for allowing it to pass.

J Street, the dovish pro-Israel lobby, welcomed the resolution.

"The resolution is consistent with longstanding bipartisan American
policy, which includes strong support for the two-state solution, and
clear opposition to irresponsible and damaging actions, including
Palestinian incitement and terror and Israeli settlement expansion and
home demolitions," J Street said.

The American Jewish Committee in a statement Friday said it was "deeply
disappointed that the United States chose to abstain on a U.N. Security
Council resolution today which singled out Israel for condemnation."

Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, slammed
the decision. The New York Post quoted him saying "Obama has made it
clear that he’s a Jew hating, anti-Semite. He likes Jews who are his
friends but not Jews in general."

901 Why does the Supreme Court of Israel bear an Illuminati pyramid on its roof?

Why does the Supreme Court of Israel bear an Illuminati pyramid on its roof?

Newsletter published on 20 December 2016

(1) This Judeo-Masonic Kabbalistic world
(2) Why does the Supreme Court of Israel bear an Illuminati pyramid on
its roof?
(3) Masonic Order Designs Symbology in Israeli Supreme Court Building -
by Jerry Golden {Jewish}
(4) Israeli Supreme Court "Illuminati" Pyramid - youtube video by Pastor
Paul Begley
(5) The 'Illuminati Eye' Supreme Court Building Israel - Pastor Paul Begley
(6) Ley Lines Of The Israeli Supreme Court - Pastor Paul Begley
(7) Both Islam and Judaism seek to run the world
(8) Islam seeks to Run the World - Quotations from THE LITTLE GREEN BOOK
of Ayatollah Khomeini

(1) This Judeo-Masonic Kabbalistic world

From: juan galindes <jgalindes@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 08:36:42 -0200
Subject: Re: NYT Book Review: ‘Debriefing the President’ Tears Into the
C.I.A.

Dear Peter,

Wish a merry christmas and a happy 2017 for you and all your family.

I do appreciate your efforts analysing the caotic situation of the world
and always your articles have been illuminating and many times sparked
curiosity to go deeper into the hidden whereabouts of, my point of view,
this Judeo-Masonic Kabbalistic world

With regards, you argentine friend who lives in Rio.

(2) Why does the Supreme Court of Israel bear an Illuminati pyramid on
its roof?
by Peter Myers, December 21, 2016

Friends, I have had this material for some time; I was just waiting for
an occasion to present it. Juan's email gave me the push.

There's speculation whether the One World Conspiracy is Jewish or
Masonic (Illuminati).

The answer, we now know, is "both".

The Supreme Court of Israel bears, on its roof, an Illuminati pyramid.
And it was commissioned and paid for by the Rothschilds.

When you see the photos and watch the youtube videos, the wool will be
pulled for your eyes. No longer will you doubt that there are
conspiracies in high places. No longer will you shrink from being called
a "Conspiracy Theorist".

Take the trouble to save the webpages and the youtube videos to your
computer. Also save this email; it contains the URLs (links).

Study the article by Jerry Golden (who is Jewish) (item 3). Save the
webpage.

Study the youtube videos by Pastor Paul Begley (items 4 to 6). Save
these youtubes.

But what is the meaning of this? Is Judaism inherently Masonic? Is
Freemasonry secretly Jewish? Why the Egyptian obelisk? Does this suggest
that the all-seeing Eye is, in fact, the Eye of Horus? Why the borrowing
from Ancient Egypt, given that the Jewish Bible condemns that culture as
"Pagan" (which is what "Goy" means).

Suppose that the Third Temple is built. Will it feature animal
sacrifices, as the Orthodox expect? Or will it be more like a Masonic
temple? Will there be a High Priest ("pope")?

(3) Masonic Order Designs Symbology in Israeli Supreme Court Building -
by Jerry Golden {Jewish}

The Israeli NWO tips their hand. --
Masonic Order Designs Symbology in Israeli Supreme Court Building
by Jerry Golden (Jewish):

{visit this link and study the photos; save the webpage to your computer}
http://www.abidemiracles.com/555701.htm

In this report are many pictures showing the establishment of
Illuminati-established proof that there is a plot by those we refer to
as the New World Order to Show in architectural design of the New
Israeli Supreme Court Building designed and paid for by the Rothchilds,
a presence of Free Masonry and the Illuminati in Israel. I [Jerry
Golden] took all but one of the pictures you see here so I can assure
that what you are seeing is real and actually in place.

The same families who own and control the Federal Reserve and other
major financial institutions have their eyes set on the Temple Mount and
the Holy City of Jerusalem. [...]

{visit this link and study the photos; save the webpage to your computer}
http://www.abidemiracles.com/555701.htm

(4) Israeli Supreme Court "Illuminati" Pyramid - youtube video by Pastor
Paul Begley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYfRZmd7KcY

Israeli Supreme Court "Illuminati" Pyramid

Paul Begley

Published on 18 May 2015

There are 33 steps from inside the Supreme Court Building that lead to
the base of the "Illuminati" Pyramid. The Rothchild family designed and
paid for the construction of the building.

(5) The 'Illuminati Eye' Supreme Court Building Israel - Pastor Paul Begley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCwW5IFgmq0

Paul Begley Today - The 'Illuminati Eye' Supreme Court Building Israel

(6)  Ley Lines Of The Israeli Supreme Court - Pastor Paul Begley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQIemMNev_w

Paul Begley Today - Ley Lines Of The Israeli Supreme Court

(7) Both Islam and Judaism seek to run the world
by Peter Myers, December 21, 2016

For the Jewish side, David Ben Gurion articulates the goal of World
Government from Jerusalem:
http://mailstar.net/bengur62.jpg

For Islam, Ayatollah Khomeini articulates the goal of running the world,
in his 'Little Green Book'

(8) Islam seeks to Run the World - Quotations from THE LITTLE GREEN BOOK
of Ayatollah Khomeini

http://islammonitor.org/uploads/docs/greenbook.pdf

THE LITTLE GREEN BOOK
Selected Fatawah And Sayings of The
Ayatollah Mosavi Khomeini
— translated into English by Harold Salemson — with a special
introduction by Clive Irving

Bantam Books, 1985 / ISBN: 0553140329 PDF Edition

Muslims have no alternative, if they wish to correct the political
balance of society, and force those in power to conform to the laws and
principles of Islam, to an armed Jihad against profane governments.

Though you may not have the means to prevent heresy or fight corruption,
nevertheless, you must not remain silent. If they hit you in the head,
protest! Resigning yourself to oppression is more immoral than
oppression itself. Argue, denounce, oppose, shout. Spread the truth –
that Islamic justice is not what they say it is.

Jihad means the conquest of all non-Muslim territories. Such a war may
well be declared after the formation of an Islamic government worthy of
that name, at the direction of the Imam or under his orders. It will
then be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this
war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Qur’anic law in power
from one end of the earth to the other. But the whole world should
understand that the universal supremacy of Islam is considerably
different from the hegemony of other conquerors. It is therefore
necessary for the Islamic government first to be created under the
authority of the Imam in order that he may undertake this conquest,
which will be distinguishable from all other wars of conquest, which are
unjust and tyrannical and disregard the moral and civilizing principles
of Islam.

Who liberated our country and our people from the shame of
Zoroastrianism, if not the victorious army of Islam?

There are some of us who aren’t concerned with developing an Islamic
movement, but, instead, of making the pilgrimage to Mecca with the
Muslim brothers, in peace and understanding. It certainly wasn’t that
way in the time of the Prophet. The Friday prayers were the means of
mobilizing the people, of inspiring them to battle. The man who goes to
war straight from the mosque is afraid of only one thing – Allah. Dying,
poverty, and homelessness mean nothing to him; an army of men like that
is a victorious army.

Islamic faith and justice demand that within the Muslim world,
anti-Islamic governments not be allowed to survive. The installation of
a lay public power is equivalent to actively opposing the progress of
Islamic order. Any nonreligious power, whatever form or shape it may
take, is necessarily an atheistic power, the tool of Satan; it is part
of our duty to stand in its path and to struggle against its effects.
Such Satanic power can engender nothing but corruption on earth, the
supreme evil which must be pitilessly fought and rooted out. To achieve
that end, we have no recourse other than to overthrow all governments
that do not rest on pure Islamic principles, and are thus traitorous,
rotten, unjust, and tyrannical administrative systems that server them.
That is not only our duty in Iran, but it is also the duty of all
Muslims in the world, in all Muslim countries, to carry the Islamic
political revolution to its final victory.