Betrayal at the UN

In eighteen days time, Barack Hussein Obama’s presidency will have ended and President-elect Trump will have been installed as the 45th president of the USA.  By now, many have likely forgotten how Pres. Obama, in office for only a few months and before he had accomplished anything of note, was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.  Widely criticized for their choice of recipients, the Norwegian Nobel Committee justified their selection of the fledgling US president thus:  It was because Pres. Obama had “created a new climate in international politics.”  (The award was intended, as much as anything, as a rejection of the foreign policies of Pres. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush.)

In 2009, Pres. Obama hadn’t as yet created the “new climate in international politics” that the Norwegian Nobel Committee believed he had.  But that is not the case eight years later.  Just look around at the world he leaves for his successor.  The world’s greatest exporter of terrorism, Iran, is billions of dollars wealthier, courtesy of the US.   An ascendant Russia now ‘calls the shots’, literally, in the Middle East, thanks to a leader content to “lead from behind.”

Not only has Pres. Obama empowered two of the biggest threats to the West and, ultimately, to world peace–Iran and Russia–he has abandoned the one and only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel.  It had been a longstanding tradition that when the United nations Security Council (UNSC) attempted to pass resolutions targeting Israel over the issue of so-called ‘settlements’, the US as one of the permanent members would use its veto power, and thus the resolution would fail to pass.  On 23 December 2016, the Obama administration, breaking with tradition, abstained rather than using its veto power, thereby allowing UNSC resolution 2334 to pass.

This unprecedented abstention will have far-reaching consequences.  Resolution 2334, unlike previous resolutions, calls for Israel not only to withdraw to the pre-June 1967 borders, but to withdraw from East Jerusalem.  Consider what such a withdrawal would mean for the Jewish people:  It would mean abandoning the Temple Mount, site of the First and Second Temples; it would mean forsaking the Western Wall where Jews pray; it would mean turning over to the Palestinians the entire Jewish Quarter of the city, including the cemetery on the Mount of Olives, the Hadassah Hospital and Hebrew University on Mt. Scopus.  Resolution 2334 calls for the Jewish people to deny their historic and religious connections to Jerusalem.  It calls for Israel to do the unthinkable!

 

western-wall-3

(Personal photo taken on a trip to Israel in 2014)

Israelis remember all too well what life was like when Jordan occupied the same territory (1948-67).  During the 1948 war between the nascent Jewish state and its Arab neighbours, Jordan seized control of the west bank of the Jordan River as well as the Old City of Jerusalem.  Jordan’s seizure and annexation of this territory, interestingly, was viewed as an illegal act by the Arab League; Britain recognized it.  The 1949 Armistice Agreement that ended the war was supposed to give Israelis access to their religious sites in the Old City/East Jerusalem, but Jordan never honoured the agreement.  Israelis were barred from entering the Old City; some 58 ancient synagogues in the Jewish Quarter were either desecrated or destroyed; and tombstones from the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives were used to build army barracks and even latrines for the Jordanian army.  Slum dwellings were allowed to abut the Western  Wall where Jews once prayed.  The site most sacred to Jews worldwide came to resemble a garbage dump.

Contrast Israel’s treatment of religious sites today with that of Jordan’s.  In Israel, all religious groups are allowed administration over their own holy sites.  The administration of the Temple Mount has been retained by the Islamic Waqf, as it has been for centuries.

Because the US president abandoned Israel at the UN, expect to see more boycotts, divestment, and sanctions placed on Israel goods (economic warfare); more Israelis and their supporters hauled up before the International Criminal Court (lawfare); and, ominously, anticipate even more resistance a.k.a. terrorist attacks.  The Palestinian Arabs have had their claims to East Jerusalem affirmed by the UN Security Council, so why bother to negotiate with the Israeli government?

With the West’s enemies empowered and Israel abandoned at the UN, war is more likely now after eight years of an Obama presidency than before. This is the new climate in international politics created by the 2009 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize:  Pres. Obama.

 

Advertisements

The Russian Bear’s New Best Friends

If you are someone who depends solely on the Main Stream Media (MSM) for your news, you likely are  unaware that a geo-political shift of seismic proportions has occurred in the Middle East.  Like me, probably all you have heard from the MSM is that, for the first time ever, Russia launched a bombing raid on the so-called Islamic State (IS) from a base inside Iran.  Nor is it likely that you learned Turkey wants to make Incirlik, the US military’s major base of operations in Turkey and site of the US’ largest stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons on foreign soil, available now to Russia as well.

In an unprecedented move, and something even the shah of Iran never allowed, the Islamic Republic of Iran has permitted a foreign power, Russia, to use one of its air bases–Shahid Nojeh air base 50 km north of Hamadan–from which to launch bombing raids against IS in Syria.  (Critics of Russia’s bombing campaign claim that Russia targets predominantly moderate Syrian opposition forces, allies of the US, not IS.)  What does Russia get out of this new arrangement?  A greatly reduced flying time to terrorist targets in Syria.  What does Iran get out of collaborating with Russia?   Given that Iran calls the US ‘the Great Satan’ and Israel ‘the Little Satan’, I can’t think of anything good to come out of it for Israel and her allies.  (Since Russia “bragged” about its use of the Iranian air base, Iran has announced an end to the arrangement after only three sorties by the Russian bombers.  Be that as may, that Iran would allow it even once is jaw-dropping.)

Then there’s Erdogan’s Turkey,  a fellow NATO member, although, who could tell these days?  After the failed coup attempt in July, Erdogan ordered the blockade of Incirlik, the major base of operations for the  US military in Turkey, home to 5,000 US airmen and site of the US’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on foreign soil.   He has asked the US to hand over to Turkey the tactical nuclear weapons  (the US hasn’t).  Furthermore, he wants to make continued use of Incirlik air base by the Americans contingent on the US turning over Gulen, who Erdogan claims was behind the coup.  And, astoundingly, Erdogan wants the air base at Incirlik to be available now for use by Russia  as well.  An American presence on Turkish soil was established during the Cold War as a deterrent to the threat posed by the former USSR! Ironic, isn’t it.

The ‘cozy’ relationship developing between Russia, Iran, and Turkey should be a major news story, but to most, it isn’t.  Those who take Biblical prophecy seriously, however, are sitting up and taking notice.  In the Book of Ezekiel, the Hebrew prophet describes a coalition of nations, led by a leader named Gog, who attacks Israel in the latter days with disastrous consequences for the world (Ezek 38 and 39) in what has come to be known as ‘The War of Gog and Magog’.   Only one of the nations who make up this coalition is readily identifiable today:  Persia, or Iran as it is now known (38:5). Consequently, this has led to a lot of speculation as to the makeup of the rest of this latter day coalition.  Some claim that “Gog, prince of Meshech and Tubal” (38:3) refers to Russia and its leader, and “Togarmah” (38:6) is Turkey, hence the interest in the new Iran-Russia-Turkey axis.

How did Russia come to be the dominant power in the Middle East, seemingly overnight?  I asked someone this question and he replied:  “The Russian bear moved into the Middle East, and Obama moved into the bathrooms of America.”  I think that sums it up pretty well.  In pursuit of so-called “transgender rights,” the Obama administration, through its policies and decrees, is forcing radical social change on America.  Under Obama, who claims to be acting on behalf of the 0.6% of the American population who identify as transgender, the concept of male-female is being made irrelevant.   Just last week, Pres. Obama decreed that every bathroom, shower, and locker room in every courthouse, every school,  indeed,  every federal building in the US, is now open to people of either gender.  One’s sexual identity–now considered a matter of personal choice–determines what bathroom or locker room one can use, and not the set of ‘plumbing’ one was born with.  Social change:  this is Pres. Obama’s priority at this moment in time.  I predict that future generations will regard this period in history with utter disbelief, trying to,  and failing, to make sense of the Obama administration’s  obsession with bathrooms at a time like this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Lausanne Deal: Peace, but Only for a Time

There’s an unsettling feeling shared by many that the world has just entered another ‘Neville Chamberlain’ moment in time, a suspicion that the six major world powers who participated in the Lausanne negotiations have been outmanoeuvred and ‘outfoxed’ by a wily Islamic Republic of Iran. Neville Chamberlain, you will recall, was the well-meaning but naïve British Prime Minister who thought he could do a deal with Herr Hitler. When Nazi Germany threatened to take over all of Czechoslovakia unless Britain supported its plans to annex the German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland, Chamberlain went to Berchtesgaden to meet with Hitler personally. Der Fuhrer promised not to make any further territorial demands if he was given the Sudetenland. In a shameless act of appeasement, Chamberlain granted Hitler his wish. On 29 September 1938, Britain, France, Italy, and Germany signed the Munich Pact which transferred the Sudetenland to Germany. Czechoslovakia was never even consulted. Upon his return to Britain, a triumphant Chamberlain announced, “I believe it is peace for our time.”

We all know how that worked out. In March 1939, Germany annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia. Years later, it was revealed that it had been Benito Mussolini, representing fascist Italy in Munich, who proposed the plan that came to be implemented by the four world powers–a plan written, in fact, by the German Foreign Office.

Neville Chamberlain has been vilified as a pathetically-naïve dupe of der Fuhrer. In fairness to Chamberlain, however, how many world leaders at the time–apart from an astute Winston Churchill–perceived the gravity of the threat posed by Hitler and his Third Reich? It is often forgotten that Chamberlain returned from Germany to public acclaim and cheering crowds in Britain.

The P5 plus 1 (the six permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) and Iran have been meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland for the past eight days in an attempt to hammer out a deal which would restrict Iran’s nuclear activity to peaceful purposes. Iran, in return, would have the sanctions imposed on it by the international community lifted. At one stage in the negotiations, with the possibility of a preliminary draft agreed to by all seven countries looking increasingly unlikely, the P5 plus 1 lowered their expectations. They would be content now with a joint ‘statement of goals’.

Hasn’t Iran already stated its goals to anyone paying attention? In a recent speech marking the Persian new Year, the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, didn’t hesitate to join with the rabble calling for America’s destruction. When people started hollering “Death to America” as is their wont, Khamenei responded: “Of course, yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure [not sure what ‘pressure’ he meant].” And the response from the Obama white House? Pay no attention; it’s only “intended for a domestic audience.”

Then, on Tuesday, the commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRG), Brigadier General Naqdi, announced that “erasing Israel off the map is non-negotiable.” The brazenness of Iran’s spiritual and military leaders in calling openly for the destruction of America and the annihilation of Israel–at the very time that the P5 plus 1 negotiators were meeting with Iran’s Foreign Minister–is ‘jaw-dropping ‘ in its audacity. One thing to be said in Neville Chamberlain’s defence: He didn’t know what Hitler had in mind for Germany’s neighbours, indeed, for the rest of the world. The P5 plus 1, on the other hand, unlike Chamberlain, will never be able to plead ignorance.

Word has just come that the P5 plus 1 negotiators, along with Iran, have drafted what they are calling “the framework of an agreement” which sets the stage for a final agreement to be reached by June 30. The hard work of writing the final text now begins. Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif claims the agreement will show that Iran’s nuclear program is “exclusively peaceful, has always been and always will remain exclusively peaceful.” An upbeat President Obama asserts with confidence that the deal cuts off “every pathway that Iran could take to build nuclear weapons.” This “historic” deal, President Obama insists, leaves the US, its allies, and the whole world safer.

I for one won’t be breaking out the champagne just yet. Has Iran indicated that it has given up its intention to eliminate the ‘Zionist enemy’ as it refers to Israel? That it will stop funding terrorism? Or cease fight proxy wars? By boasting that this deal “cuts off every pathway that Iran could take to build nuclear weapons,” President Obama has in effect issued a challenge to Iran’s scientists, mullahs, and military leaders to prove him wrong. Until Iran accepts the existence of the Jewish state, no framework, or deal, or agreement–whatever name you want to give it–will make the world any safer.