Tag Archives: United Nations Security Council

Caught!

Posted on by

On September 18th, Hot Air posted an article about the Hezbollah pagers that exploded yesterday. There were some very interesting people who had those pagers.

The article quotes The New York Times:

Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amini, lost one eye and severely injured his other eye when a pager he was carrying exploded in a simultaneous wave of blasts targeting wireless electronic devices, according to two members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps briefed on the attack.

The Guards members, who had knowledge of the attacks and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said Mr. Amini’s injuries were more serious than Iran initially reported and that he would be medevacked to Tehran for treatment.

Hossein Soleimani, the editor in chief of Mashregh, the main Revolutionary Guards news website, confirmed the extent of Mr. Amini’s injuries in a post on X. “Unfortunately the injuries sustained by Iran’s ambassador were extremely severe and in his eyes,” Mr. Soleimani wrote.

Why was Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon carrying a Hezbollah pager?

John Hinderaker at Power Line reported on the news that on Thursday handheld radios were exploding.

The article at Power Line notes:

Apparently fires have broken out in seemingly random buildings, and loudspeakers are telling people to take the batteries out of their phones. I haven’t seen any reports, however, of exploding cell phones.

The usual suspects are up in arms over yesterday’s pager attack:

The United Nations Security Council will convene an emergency meeting on Friday afternoon to discuss Israel’s wave of attacks in Lebanon, according to Slovenia, which holds the Council’s rotating presidency this month.

How many emergency meetings have they held over Hezbollah’s rocket bombardment of Israel, which has gone on for months?

The United Nations’ human rights chief, Volker Türk, has criticized the pager attack as a violation of international law and called for those behind it to be held to account.

So, does sending thousands of rockets into Israel violate international law? What does the U.N. propose to do about it?

Nothing, of course. Hence the need for Israel to defend itself.

That is the current state of the United Nations.

 

Betraying An Ally

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about the impact of the Biden administration’s decision not to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Thank God the United Nations never called for a ceasefire during World War II. Why hasn’t the United Nations called for a ceasefire in Ukraine?

The article reports:

Hamas is reportedly refusing to accept Israel’s terms for a hostage deal and digging in on its demands after the Biden administration refused to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution on Monday calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

The resolution did not require that Israeli hostages be released as a condition of a ceasefire — a requirement that the U.S. had made in previous proposals. Instead, the resolution simply mentioned the release of the remaining hostages.

Hamas saw that as a victory — as did nations like South Africa, which is currently pursuing a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, claiming that Israel is committing “genocide” in its war against Hamas.

Hamas praised the Security Council, and said that it was prepared to discuss the exchange of Israeli hostages (which it described as “prisoners”) for Palestinian terror convicts — but only after a ceasefire.

The Times of Israel reported: “Hamas says it has informed mediators that the terror group will stick to its original position on reaching a comprehensive ceasefire, which includes the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, a return of displaced Palestinians and a “real” exchange of prisoners.”

The article concludes:

A draft U.S. resolution, which was vetoed by Russia and China last Friday, made a ceasefire dependent on the release of the Israeli hostages — indeed, that was one of the reasons cited by opponents of the U.S. draft for voting against it.

The White House claimed Monday that its position had not changed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu disagreed, canceling a meeting between his senior aides and President Joe Biden’s aides to discuss their differences.

Kirby said that the Biden administration was “perplexed” by Netanyahu’s decision, and claimed Netanyahu was overreacting to the resolution by “choosing to create a perception of daylight here when they don’t need to do that.”

The Biden administration’s decision to abstain from the resolution recalls a similar decision by the Obama White House in its last weeks in 2016, when the U.S. abstained from U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, which declared the Israeli presence across the 1949 armistice lines — including in the Old City of Jerusalem — illegal. The backlash against that decision led President Donald Trump to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Are we really sure that the hostages are still alive?

 

 

Things Not Being Said Publicly

Posted on by

On Saturday, Townhall posted an article about the continuing war in Gaza. Although the Biden administration and some other countries are putting pressure on Israel not to end Hamas, some countries in the Middle East are not in agreement with allowing Hamas to survive.

The article reports:

In the days after the brutal October 7 attacks executed by Hamas, Egypt knew what was going to happen. They deployed tanks to the border while their prime minister vowed that his country would sacrifice millions to keep their borders safe. He was not referring to Israel. So, what’s the latest? Well, Haaretz is reporting that Israel’s Arab neighbors are telling Jerusalem privately that they shouldn’t stop military operations until Hamas has been annihilated. They view them as a domestic threat:

The article includes a quote from an article in France 24:

The outcome of a joint summit of the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in the Saudi capital highlighted regional divisions over how to respond to the war even as fears mount that it could draw in other countries. 

…The final declaration on Saturday rejected Israeli claims that it is acting in “self-defence” and demanded that the United Nations Security Council adopt “a decisive and binding resolution” to halt Israel’s “aggression”. 

It also called for an end to weapons sales to Israel and dismissed any future political resolution to the conflict that would keep Gaza separate from the Israeli-occupied West Bank. 

Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who before the war was considering establishing formal diplomatic ties with Israel, told the summit he “holds the occupation (Israeli) authorities responsible for the crimes committed against the Palestinian people”. 

…Some countries, including Algeria and Lebanon, proposed responding to the devastation in Gaza by threatening to disrupt oil supplies to Israel and its allies as well as severing the economic and diplomatic ties that some Arab League nations have with Israel, the diplomats said. 

However, at least three countries — including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which normalised ties with Israel in 2020 — rejected the proposal, according to the diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity. 

In a televised address Saturday evening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Arab leaders “have to stand up against Hamas”, which he described as “an integral part of the terror axis led by Iran”. 

Why is there so much talk about crimes committed against the Palestinian people and so little talk about crimes committed against Israelis on October 7th and before and after? Where is the concern for the rockets fired consistently on civilian populations in Israel since March 2006? How would America handle things if Mexico had been firing rockets into Texas since 2006?

Does Anyone Actually Believe That The United Nations Is A Positive Force For World Peace?

Posted on by

On Sunday, Hot Air reported that due to the normal rotation of leadership, Vladimir Putin has now become the president of the United Nations Security Council.

The article reports:

The United Nations Security Council rotates new members in as the president of the council on a monthly basis. This month it was Russia’s turn, making Vladimir Putin the president. While this was no doubt an annoyance to most of the NATO allies in the UN, it was particularly bothersome to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski. Last night he took his complaints to the press, describing the move as “absurd and destructive.” He pointed out that a five-month-old child had been killed by a Russian missile strike only the day before. His Foreign Minister joined him in protesting the situation, calling it “a slap in the face to the international community.” But the position is almost entirely ceremonial and it’s unlikely that Putin will be showing up for any meetings in the near future.

The article also notes:

Look at the current membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Some of the most autocratic nations guilty of massive human rights abuses are seated there, including China and the United Arab Emirates. (And Russia, of course.) Other examples abound throughout the entirety of the UN.

But how likely is it that Vladimir Putin will actually show up to gavel a meeting into session? Keep in mind that the International Criminal Court recently issued an arrest warrant for Putin over war crimes committed in Ukraine. The court isn’t technically part of the UN, falling under the Assembly of State Parties, but it runs pretty much in parallel. Wouldn’t the other members of the council feel obligated to slap some handcuffs on Putin if he showed up?

That would make for an interesting wrinkle in this story. If anyone had the audacity to actually arrest him, Russia would almost certainly retaliate, potentially expanding the conflict to dangerous levels. Then again, Putin may be counting on everyone being aware of that possibility. While it seems unlikely, he might just show up to prove a point.

Let’s kick the United Nations out of New York City and turn the building into affordable housing!

Would Anyone Actually Want This Job?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, MRCTV reported that the United Nations has an interesting job listing on its website. The listing is for a “Partnership Specialist” to bring gender equality to Afghanistan.

This is a portion of the listing:

UN Women, grounded in the vision of equality enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, works for the elimination of discrimination against women and girls; the empowerment of women; and the achievement of equality between women and men as partners and beneficiaries of development, human rights, humanitarian action and peace and security.

UN Women is dedicated to advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment in Afghanistan. Staff and consultants of the Afghanistan Country Office (ACO) are expected to contribute to a professional working environment in which the strengthening of national capacities and human potential is prioritized. Respect for diversity and human dignity is required, as is the active pursuit of a collaborative and inclusive approach to both internal and external stakeholders, including colleagues and partners.

Under the direct supervision of the Country Representative, the Partnerships and Reporting Specialist will be responsible and accountable for the effective and efficient provision of donor-related support services to senior management, programmes and operations units within the Afghanistan Country Office (ACO). The donor related support services include external relations and resource mobilization coordination, coordinating the preparation of proposals and donor reports and maintaining a working relationship between UN Women and donors.

The duties and responsibilities include:

Build and maintain effective external relations, strategic partnerships and support resource mobilization:

    • Develop the resource mobilization strategy/plan for the Afghanistan Country Office (ACO) and coordinate implementation;
    • Undertake ad-hoc donor studies, research, and other activities to identify funding opportunities; update the resources mobilization strategy as needs emerge;
    • Develop a prospective donor profile database that includes prospective donor funding areas, geographical and sectoral preferences, criteria, and policies with a view to identifying funding opportunities;
    • Monitor calls for proposals related to UN Women ACO mandate;
    • Initiate Resource Mobilization meetings and presentations to prospective donors in Afghanistan and outside, including preparation of briefing notes;
    • Design and implement effective advocacy strategies and methods for proactive and strategic targeting of partners and donors.
    • Convene and facilitate donor working group on gender to
    • Manage and coordinate relationships with key partners; provide technical inputs to senior management’s efforts to develop new and innovative partnerships;
    • Develop and implements strategies for maximizing potential for existing trust funds and regional projects and other sources;
    • Provide technical support the drafting and review of partner-specific Framework Arrangements and Cost Sharing Agreements.

The job posting notes:

Note:

In July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly created UN Women, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. The creation of UN Women came about as part of the UN reform agenda, bringing together resources and mandates for greater impact. It merges and builds on the important work of four previously distinct parts of the UN system (DAW, OSAGI, INSTRAW and UNIFEM), which focused exclusively on gender equality and women’s empowerment.

MRCTV notes:

The members of the Security Council called for an immediate end to the violence in Afghanistan, the restoration of security, civil and constitutional order, and urgent talks to resolve the current crisis of authority in the country and to arrive at a peaceful settlement through an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned process of national reconciliation. They underscored that a sustainable end to the conflict in Afghanistan can only be achieved through an inclusive, just, durable and realistic political settlement that upholds human rights, including for women, children and minorities. The members of the Security Council called on parties to adhere to international norms and standards on human rights and put an end to all abuses and violations in this regard.

Somehow I don’t think the actions of the United Nations Security Council will have any results. You really can’t make this stuff up.

Does The United Nations Support Freedom?

Posted on by

One America News posted an article today stating that the U.N. Security Council is set to meet Friday to discuss the ongoing protests in Iran.

The article reports:

Security Council members are divided on the matter with several powers calling for non-interference with what they see as an internal Iranian issue.

U.S. policymakers have shown rare unity on the matter with hawks among both the Democrats and mainstream Republicans embracing the Iranian protest movement.

However, while the Washington establishment is favoring the regime change strategy, it has shown little concern with the loss of human lives in Iran.

Experts don’t expect Friday’s U.N. Security Council meeting to produce major results as its permanent members are concerned with either supporting the Islamic revolution or changing the regime, rather than the well-being of the Iranian people.

One of the problems with asking the United Nations for help for the Iranian people is the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a 57-member group with 56 members also being voting members of the United Nations.  The organisation states that it is “the collective voice of the Muslim world” and works to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.” The OIC supports Sharia Law and would very much be in agreement with the mullahs rather than the people of Iran.

It would be very surprising to see anything come out of the United Nations in support of the Iranian people demonstrating for freedom.

We May Be Working With The Chinese To Rein In North Korea, But Is China Working With Us?

Posted on by

Yesterday Fox News reported that China has been secretly selling oil to North Korea, despite promising to uphold the United Nations boycott of North Korea.

The article reports:

Satellite images released by the U.S. Department of Treasury appeared to show vessels from both countries illegally trading oil in the West Sea, The Chosun Ilbo reported Tuesday, citing South Korean government sources.

North Korea was barred in September by the United Nations Security Council from importing natural gas and had its crude oil imports capped in response to Kim Jong Un’s nuclear missile program.

China is one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. If it is not willing to uphold the resolutions of the United Nations, why are they a member. It seems as if the United Nations is on a campaign lately to show how totally irrelevant it has become.

 

Standing With Our Friends

Posted on by

On December 8, Nikki Haley, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, gave the speech below to the United Nations after the organization attempted to pass a resolution blocking President Trump from moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Since when does the United Nations tell countries where their capitals are?

The speech was posted at YouTube:

Some highlights of the speech are listed at The Blaze.

Below is a portion of what Ambassador Haley said:

And finally, I will not let this moment pass without a comment about the United Nations itself. Over many years the United Nations has outrageously been at the world’s foremost centers of hostility towards Israel. The U.N. has done much more damage to the prospects for Middle East peace than to advance them. We will not be a party to that. The United States no longer stands by when Israel is unfairly attacked in the United Nations. And the United States will not be lectured to by countries that lack any credibility when it comes to treating both Israelis and Palestinians fairly.

It’s nice that the Trump Administration is remembering who our friends are.

Some Background On The Indictment Of Michael Flynn

Posted on by

Michael Flynn is expected to plead guilty this morning of lying to the FBI. Seems as if a lot of other people have done that in the past with limited consequences, but that was then and this is now.

Fox News is reporting the details this morning.

These are the details of the charges:

  • “On or about Dec 29, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Government of Russia’s Ambassador to the United States … to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day; and FLYNN did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.”
  • “On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution; and  that the Russian Ambassador subsequently never described to FLYNN Russia’s response to his request.”

At this point I am not going to mention that this information was probably obtained through the illegal surveillance by the Obama Administration during and after the election. That alone would result in the case being thrown out in a legal court.

I want to mention a few other things about Michael Flynn. Unfortunately, he is a pawn in a much larger attempt to end the Trump presidency before it can be successful. Since the economic success of the Trump Administration is already becoming obvious to anyone who is paying attention, those who want Trump impeached are starting to get desperate. I would also like to note that the FBI has a past history with Flynn that might influence those doing the investigating.

In September, I posted an article that included the following:

When the FBI launched an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, one of the bureau’s top former counterterrorism agents believed that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe would have to recuse himself from the investigation.

Former Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz was one of the bureau’s top intelligence analysts and terrorism experts but resigned from the bureau five years ago after she said she was harassed and her career was blocked by top FBI management. She filed a formal sexual discrimination complaint against the bureau in 2013 and it was Flynn, among many others, who publicly came to her aide.

In her first on-camera interview she described the retaliation from McCabe and others in the bureau as “vicious.”

…She told Circa, current senior level management, including McCabe, created a “cancer like” bureaucracy striking fear into FBI agents and causing others to resign. She eventually resigned herself, but her case is still pending.

Lying to the FBI is not a good idea, but I would like to note that the Clintons have done it consistently over the years with very little consequences. The indictment of Flynn is nothing more than the deep state at work. Those responsible for the illegal surveillance need to be held accountable, and all conflicts of interest in the office of the special prosecutor need to be revealed and dealt with. Unfortunately, Flynn has been caught up as a pawn in a much larger witch hunt. It should also be noted that Flynn was fired after about a month in his job in the Trump administration for lying to Vice-President Pence.

A Positive Step Toward Protecting Persecuted Christians

Posted on by

As Iran has become more powerful in the Middle East, the persecution of Christians has increased. Unfortunately, the Islamic religion does not include tolerance for those who do not practice Islam. In the past, our efforts to provide relief for persecuted Christians has been filtered through the United Nations, an organization that has tended to look the other way when Christians were persecuted. One of the major voting blocs in the United Nations is the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). That organization believes that Christianity is blasphemy against Islam and that Christians should be persecuted. The OIC is actually a major player in deciding how and where money for humanitarian aid to refugees and persecuted people should be spent.

One America News is reporting today that the Trump administration is changing the way humanitarian aid to persecuted Christians is handled.

The following video explains:

Hopefully this change will mean the persecuted Christians receive the necessary aid.

Why The United Nations Is No Longer Relevant

Posted on by

This is Article I of the United Nations Charter (from the U.N. website):

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

  1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
  3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
  4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Reuters reported yesterday:

Russia blocked a Western-led effort at the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday to condemn last week’s deadly gas attack in Syria and push Moscow’s ally President Bashar al-Assad to cooperate with international inquiries into the incident.

It was the eighth time during Syria’s six-year-old civil war that Moscow has used its veto power on the Security Council to shield Assad’s government.

In the latest veto, Russia blocked a draft resolution backed by the United States, France and Britain to denounce the attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun and tell Assad’s government to provide access for investigators and information such as flight plans.

If the United Nations cannot even denounce a poison gas attack on civilians, what good is it?

Between 1955 and 2013, the United Nations issued at least 77 resolutions targeting Israel (statistics and list here), and the United Nations can’t even come up with a resolution condemning a poison gas attack on civilians? Wow.

American taxpayer dollars provide a major portion of the funding of the United Nations. I think the fact that the U.N. can’t even condemn a poison gas attack on civilians justifies the end of that funding. Until all members of the United Nations are willing to admit that it is wrong to use poison gas on civilians, I don’t think the U.N. has much relevance or credibility. Their moral authority no longer exists.

Eventually The Truth Comes Out

Posted on by

On Saturday (updated Sunday), The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about new evidence of misconduct by those who are attempting to sell the idea of global warming.

The article reports:

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

…But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

Another website, wattsupwiththat, posted the following chart:
The article at wattsupwiththat further reports:

NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’

Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’

He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.
I am not a scientist, but I recognize a scam when I see one.
On March 30, 2016, I posted the following (here):

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

I hate to be cynical about this, but it seems as if the expression ‘follow the money’ applies here. One of the power blocs in the United Nations is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Despite the fact that many of the 57 nations in this group are very wealthy due to oil money, many of the people in these countries live in extreme poverty. The OIC looks at the prosperity of western countries and wants their money. They already get a lot of our money because they have oil, but greed is greed. Redistribution of wealth will leave wealthy democracies poorer and enrich dictatorships that are currently poor.

A few years ago, I posted an article about the relationship between property rights and poverty. The article was based on a Townhall.com article by John Stossel. The article included the following:

“”To get an address, somebody’s got to recognize that that’s where you live. That means … you’ve a got mailing address. … When you make a deal with someone, you can be identified. But until property is defined by law, people can’t … specialize and create wealth. The day they get title (is) the day that the businesses in their homes, the sewing machines, the cotton gins, the car repair shop finally gets recognized. They can start expanding.”

“That’s the road to prosperity. But first they need to be recognized by someone in local authority who says, “This is yours.” They need the rule of law. But many places in the developing world barely have law. So enterprising people take a risk. They work a deal with the guy on the first floor, and they build their house on the second floor.”

This is the concept the global warming alarmists want to eliminate. We need to make sure that they are not successful.

The Actual History Behind The Country Of Israel

Posted on by

Michael Oren is Israel‘s Deputy Minister for Diplomacy. On Tuesday he was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt on the subject of U.N. Resolution 2334, the Resolution that declared Israeli ‘settlements’ in parts of Israel illegal. Hugh Hewitt posted a transcript of the interview.

This is a highlight from the interview that explains why Resolution 2334 is neither appropriate or helpful:

HH: I have to begin by asking, you’re such a great historian, will you reset what the dispute over the territory is and why the Western Wall is not occupied territory, as the UN Resolution 2332 declares it to be?

MO: It’s, okay, I’ll try to do it as quickly as possible. In 1947, the UN declared that Palestine, as it was then known, would be partitioned into two states – an Arab state and an Jewish state. Notice, not a Palestinian state, but an Arab state. The Palestinians didn’t quite exist, yet, and at least not on the international radar. And the Arabs went to war to destroy the Jewish state when it was created on May 14, 1948. And the city of Jerusalem was divided. The eastern part of the city was occupied by the Jordanians, the West Bank was occupied by the Jordanians. In June, 1967, the Jordanians attacked Israel again. Israel repulsed the attack, reunited Jerusalem under Israeli rule, and captured the West Bank, or as we call it, Judea and Samaria. It is not occupied by international law, because the West Bank and East Jerusalem was never part of a recognized sovereign country. Nobody in the world, except for Britain and Pakistan, recognized the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. So the entire international law claim is spurious. But when Israel reunited the city and reunited the city, the Western Wall is in the eastern part of the city. The old city is in the eastern part of the city. We certainly can’t consider our homeland for 3,000 years to be occupied territory. You know, tell a member of the Sioux Nation that his tribal lands are occupied and he can’t live on them. That’s what the UN is telling us. They’re telling us more than that, that by living in them, we’re criminals.

HH: Yeah, this audience has heard Steven Pressfield talk about The Lion’s Gate, the book that will bring people to tears. And you’ve talked about it in your histories as well. It just is absurd. So what happened? Why would the United States do this? And what was the United States’ role in Resolution 2332, which was not vetoed in a breach of American policy that is as bad for the country of Israel as it is for the Palestinians and indeed the world?

MO: It’s bad for the world, and it’s bad for the United States, too, Hugh, and I’ll explain why. The American role was to stand back and let Israel take a tremendous hit, a tremendous hit that will expose us to sanctions and boycotts. It will kill the peace process. It will deliver a deadly, deadly blow to the people of the Middle East who look to the UN for salvation and get absolutely none at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are being massacred here. What does the UN do? It beats up on the Middle East’s only democracy. And America’s role, according to Prime Minister Netanyahu, was to cook it all up and to do some arm twisting and make it happen? Why? The Obama administration did this, I can recommend another book, I can’t do that because I’m in government, where it explains the Obama’s worldview, a worldview that sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the core conflict of the Middle East, sees the core of that conflict, the settlement and the occupation, as he calls it, and was going to do his utmost to his last day in office to discredit and delegitimize Israel for our position in settling our homeland and reuniting our ancestral capital, Jerusalem.

This resolution essentially states that Jews building houses on their own land is an obstacle to peace. Somehow it overlooks the fact that rockets fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip might be an obstacle to peace. Somehow it overlooks the fact that Hamas and the PLO have never acknowledged Israel’s right to exist–that might be an obstacle to peace.

It is a shame that this resolution was passed. If peace is possible in the Middle East, this resolution will make it more difficult to achieve. It is difficult to make peace with people whose goal is ‘to drive you into the sea,’ which has been the stated goal of the Arab nations surrounding Israel since 1948 when Israel became a nation. It is even more unfortunate that nations who generally support freedom do not support the only free country in the Middle East where Jews and Arabs have equal rights and religious freedom.The Israeli model of equal rights is the only path to peace in the Middle East, and the United Nations just threw a giant obstacle in that path.

Making The World A More Dangerous Place

Posted on by

One of the best articles explaining the history and consequences of the recent abstention vote by America at the U.N. was posted at PJMedia on Saturday. The article was written by Claudia Rosett.

The article reports:

To President Obama‘s legacy of foreign policy debacles, we can now add his landmark betrayal of Israel, carried out Dec. 23rd at the United Nations. By declining to wield the U.S. veto at the Security Council, by choosing instead to abstain — by Vanishing-from-Behind — Obama allowed the passage, by a vote of 14 in favor, 1 abstaining, of Resolution 2334. In the guise of condemning Israeli settlements, this resolution is configured to delegitimize and imperil Israel itself, America’s longtime ally and the only democracy in the Middle East.

With that signal abstention, Obama abandoned decades of U.S. practice of defending Israel against the bigots and thug governments that routinely sit on the Security Council, including permanent members Russia and China, and their rotating sidekicks, such as Venezuela. As a Wall Street Journal editorial accurately put it, referring to the U.S. abstention: “What it reveals clearly is the Obama administration’s animus against the state of Israel itself. No longer needing Jewish votes, Mr. Obama was free, finally, to punish the Jewish state in a way no previous president has done.”

This can be undone, although it will be difficult. There is the possibility that this will result in the end of any relevancy the U.N. might have had. I suspect President Trump will give the U.N. a choice–undo the resolution or lose the financial support of America. Since America provides about a quarter of the funding for the U.N., that could be interesting. The fly in the ointment might be that the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), which has become a major power bloc in the U.N., might decide to use some of the oil money America supplies to their countries to fund the U.N. This is another reason America needs to become energy independent. Because the U.N. has advanced the cause of Sharia Law and terrorism by its refusal to condemn the violence against Christians and Jews in the Middle East by Muslims, the OIC might be willing to keep the U.N. funded. This could get very interesting as soon as Donald Trump takes office.

One of the highlights of the article is a reference to an article by Jeane Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

The article explains:

In 1989, Kirkpatrick published in Commentary magazine an essay of scorching clarity, on “How the PLO Was Legitimized.” Kirkpatrick described Yasir Arafat and the PLO as “attempting to come to power through international diplomacy — reinforced by murder.”

In richly documented detail, Kirkpatrick explained how the UN had become the prime vehicle for this odyssey. She wrote about the duplicities this entailed, and the dangers:

The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an ‘international peace conference.’ But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.

Plenty has happened in the 27 years since Kirkpatrick wrote those words. But the Palestinian duplicities, diplomatic manipulations and acts of terror persist, including the campaign — with UN complicity, now abetted by Obama — to delegitimize Israel.

I suspect history will not be kind to President Obama.

This Isn’t News To Anyone Who Has Been Paying Attention

Posted on by

Yesterday CBN News posted a article about recent statements by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The article reports:

As he nears the end of his term, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon admitted Friday the organization has a “disproportionate” amount of resolutions against Israel. 

He says the anti-Israel sentiment has “foiled the ability of the U.N. to fulfill its role effectively.” 

“Over the last decade I have argued that we cannot have a bias against Israel at the U.N.,” Ban told the U.N. Security Council.

“Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel,” he added. 

“In many cases, instead of helping the Palestinian issue, this reality has foiled the ability of the U.N. to fulfill its role effectively,” he emphasized. 

Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon said that Ban “had admitted the clear truth.” 

He also added that the U.N.’s hypocrisy toward Israel had “broken records over the past decade.” 

“During this time the U.N. passed 223 resolutions condemning Israel, while only eight resolutions condemning the Syrian regime as it has massacred its citizens over the past six years. This is absurd,” Danon said. 

He also added that Israel looks forward to a new secretary-general. 

While I admire the optimism of Israel in looking forward to a new secretary-general, I am not at all convinced that the problem is in that office. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) was formed in 1969. It has 57 member states. These states comprise a major voting bloc in the United Nations. The members of the OIC have been very active in the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Their goal is to make any negative comments about Islam or Mohammad illegal. The OIC has attempted to push seven ‘defamation of religion’ resolutions through the U.N. at the Human Rights Commission. The Islamic definition of human rights does not include free speech as we know it. It also includes Sharia Law as the test of those rights. Therefore, the killing of non-Muslims would not be seen as a crime equal to the killing of Muslims. Therefore the killing of Christian civilians would not be noteworthy. That is what Israel faces in the U.N. I truly believe that it is time for the U.N. to go away.

No One Likes Being Lied To

Posted on by

No one likes being lied to. However, some lies have greater consequences than others. The Washington Free Beacon posted a story yesterday about an investigation into lies the Obama Administration told Congress about the Iranian nuclear deal. Evidently what Congress was told about the concessions made to Iran actually bore little resemblance to the deal that was finally agreed to.

The article reports:

The concerns come after statements from top officials last week suggesting that Iran is set to receive greater weapons and sanctions relief, moves that the administration had promised Congress would never take place as White House officials promoted the deal last summer.

“When multiple officials—including Secretary Kerry, Secretary Lew, and Ambassador Mull—testify in front of Members of Congress, we are inclined to believe them,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) told the Washington Free Beacon.

“However, the gap between their promises on the Iran nuclear deal and today’s scary reality continues to widen. We are now trying to determine whether this was intentional deception on the part of the administration or new levels of disturbing acquiescence to the Iranians,” Pompeo said.

Congress is believed to be investigating what insiders described to the Free Beacon as a range of areas in which administration officials may have understated the breadth of concessions made to the Islamic Republic when trying to persuade lawmakers to sign off on the final deal.

The article goes on to detail the areas where the actual deal does not resemble the information Congress received.

The article notes that Secretary of State John Kerry promised that under the agreement signed with Iran, Iran would be prohibited from carrying out ballistic missile tests.

The article reports:

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., shifted course last week, refusing to call recent Iranian launches a “violation” in a letter she signed criticizing those launches.

Note to Ms. Power: Iran is not particularly impressed nor responsive to criticism.

The article further reports:

“The Obama administration is involved in yet another sleight of hand on sanctions relief as well as the status of U.N. missile sanctions,” Dubowitz sai. “This is very familiar to those who tracked the Iran nuclear talks and recall the many ways in which broken commitments were justified and redlines were abandoned.”

Iranian allies on the U.N. Security Council, mainly Russia, have defended the missile tests, arguing that resolution 2231 has only “called upon” Iran to refrain from these tests.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin recently stated that the newest U.N. resolution governing the nuclear agreement only suggests that Iran stop test firing missiles.

“A call is different from a ban so legally you cannot violate a call, you can comply with a call or you can ignore the call, but you cannot violate a call,” Churkin was quoted as saying. “The legal distinction is there.”

Congressional critics have dismissed the argument and are pressing on the Obama administration to stand up to Iran’s defenders.

“The Kremlin’s absurd legal argument after Iran’s March tests that ‘legally you cannot violate a call’ would essentially allow the Iranian regime to do anything it wants to further develop its ballistic missile program,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter.

The Iranian nuclear deal was a badly negotiated deal. It was something that President Obama wanted to put in his legacy, and he gave away the store in order to get it done. He then added insult to injury by reporting the details, nuances, and intricacies to Congress in a manner that may not have been entirely truthful. Congress may not be unified on much, but they are pretty unified on the fact that they don’t like being lied to.

It will be interesting to see exactly what this investigation uncovers and also to see exactly what will happen if in fact Congress has been lied to. We have about eight months left of the Obama Administration. Get out the popcorn, it is going to be interesting.

Can They Get Any More Blatant?

Posted on by

The Iranian nuclear deal has again made the news–only this time it’s not the deal–it’s breaking the deal before it is really official.

The New York Times is reporting today:

Iran tested a new guided long-range ballistic missile on Sunday, hours before Parliament, in a rowdy session, approved the generalities of the nuclear agreement reached in July between Iran and world powers, the state news agency IRNA reported.

The missile launch may have violated the terms of the agreement, reached in Vienna with six world powers. According to some readings of the deal, it placed restrictions on Iran’s ambitious missile program.

Experts have been debating the interpretation of a United Nations Security Council resolution, adopted a few days after the accord was agreed upon, that bars Iran from developing missiles “designed to carry nuclear warheads.”

Hard-line Iranian officials had for months been demanding new missile tests, a common practice before the negotiations over the country’s nuclear program began in 2013.

Unfortunately we have more than a year left of a President who obviously does not have the respect of those who would do us harm. I am hoping that Congress has enough of a backbone not to lift the sanctions on Iran. The only reason Iran came to the negotiating table in the first place was that they were being negatively impacted by the sanctions against them. Once Iran came to the negotiating table, Secretary of State John Kerry‘s negotiating skills went home. The Iranian nuclear deal as it is currently written is a short path to war in the Middle East. It is ironic that as bad as the deal actually is, Iran is making no pretense of keeping it.

A Letter From Someone Who Knows The Truth

Posted on by

Heshmatollah Tabarzadi is an Iranian democratic activist. He has been arrested several times on charges related to his political activities, most recently in December 2009. In October 2010, a court sentenced him to nine additional years in jail and 74 lashes, a sentence that was reduced to eight years on appeal.

Reza Kahlili posted Mr. Tabarzadi’s open letter to western governments on his Facebook page today. Please google Reza Kahlili and read his story if you are unfamiliar with it. He is a truly courageous man.

This is the letter:

Following the U.S. and its UN Security Council allies preliminary nuclear agreement to make a deal with the Islamic regime in Iran, efforts to expand political and economic ties with the regime has swiftly begun. The most recent case is the Austrian president’s visit with Khamenei, the religious dictator in Iran.

I can not blame the efforts of Western governments to secure their national interests, however do not forget, the people of Iran are entitled to freedom, democracy, prosperity and security; and to that end, they do have expectations of the leaders of the civilized world.

The regime in Iran is, economically and fiscally, one of the most corrupt governments on the global scene. From the socio-political-legal standpoint, they view the rights of women and girls, as half that of a man and by lashing, imprisoning, acid attacks and general violence, they continue to impose and force the hijab on them.

Baha’is, newly converted Christians, Sufis and followers of transcendental teachings, etc. are jailed. And like Daesh (ISIS) they cut off people’s limbs. Journalists, lawyers, political opponents, women’s rights activists, children, etc. are oppressed and imprisoned as well.

This regime has been routinely condemned for it’s heinous and ongoing violations of human rights, by the U.N. itself, yet, Western governments are looking to expand their economic and political relations with a seditious regime?!

From an economic standpoint, this lawless autocracy, has created the most grueling conditions for the working class, nurses and generally all those who work hard for their livelihood. Now our teachers, are being imprisoned as well.

Free and Democratic elections for the people of Iran to choose their own destiny is not tolerated and with illegal supervision and persistent meddling in the electoral process, they rob the people of their vote.

It is the people of Iran who aspire to a secular Democracy, prosperity, progress and security and yet, they are confronted with none other than a violent and callous dictatorship of zealots. The people of Iran call upon all Western leaders to be absolutely aware of the nature of the regime with which they have chosen to cooperate and befriend. Having further oppressed and robbed us of our legal rights, this regime will take advantage of it’s renewed ‘credit’ with the West and will continue to inflame the region and expand it’s terrorist activities.

Secretary General of the Democratic Front of Iran, Tehran, Iran
Heshmat Tabarzadi- September 9th, 2015.

به دنبال توافقات اولیه امریکا و متحدین در شورای امنیت سازمان ملل متحد،برای معامله ی هسته ای با رژیم اسلامی حاکم بر ایران، تلاش شما برای گسترش روابط اقتصادی و سیاسی با این رژیم، رو به گسترش است که اخرین مورد، دیدار رییس جمهوری اتریش با خامنه ای دیکتاتور مذهبی حاکم بر ایران بود.
نمی توانم تلاش های دول غربی برای تامین منافع ملی شان را سرزنش کنم، اما فراموش نکنید ، مردم ایران نیز حق دارند تا ازادی،دموکراسی و رفاه و امنیت داشته باشند واز این منظر، از رهبران دنیای متمدن انتظار هایی دارند. فراموش نکنید، حکومت ایران به لحاظ اقتصادی و مالی یکی از فاسد ترین حکومت ها در جهان است.  از نطر اجتماعی-سیاسی-حقوقی، زنان و دختران را نصف مردان می داند و با شلاق و زندان و اسید پاشی، بر زنان حجاب زوری تحمیل می کند.  بهایی ها ، نو کشیان مسیحی و دراویش و طرفداران عرفان های نو را به زندان می اندازد. همچون داعش، دست و پا قطع می کند و روزنامه نگاران، حقوقدانان، مخالفین سیاسی و کوشندگان حقوق زنان و کودکان را زندانی و سرکوب می کند.به همین دلیل، همواره از سوی سازمان ملل متحد،به دلیل نقص سیستماتیک حقوق بشر ،محکوم گردیده، و اینک دولت های غربی در حال توسعه ی روابط اقتصادی و سیاسی با چنین دولت قانون شکن و سر کشی هستند!؟ این حکومت قانون شکن،به لحاظ اقتصادی، شرایط بسیار سختی بر طبقه ی زحمتکش کارگر، پرستاران، همه ی مزد بگیران و به ویژه معلم ها تحمیل کرده و نمایندگان انها را به زندان انداخته است. به انتخابات ازاد و دموکراتیک مردم ایران برای تعیین سرنوشت احترام نمی گذارد و با نظارت غیر قانونی و دخالت در فرایند برگزاری انتخابات، به انتخاب و رای مردم دستبرد می زند.قوه ی قضاییه ی مستقل وجود ندارد و نهاد های نظامی،روحانیون بلند پایه، دستگاه امنیتی و رهبر رژیم، مستقیما در امور قضات و محاکم دخالت می کنند. بنابر این، مردم ایران که خواهان دموکراسی سکولار، رفاه، پیشرفت و امنیت هستند، با چنین حکومت مذهبی خشن و بی رحمی روبرو می باشند و از رهبران دول غربی انتظار دارند، اگاه باشند، با رژیمی در حال معامله و دوستی هستند که خواسته های قانونی انها را سرکوب کرده و از امتیاز،، ارتباط با غرب،، به نفع سرکوب و حتا اتش افروزی در منطقه استفاده می کند و به شدت تروریزم را گسترش می دهد.
 
حشمت اله طبرزدی- دبیر کل جبهه ی دموکراتیک ایران- ایران- تهران- 18 شهریور 1394 خورشیدی.

Showing My Cynicism

Posted on by

The Hill is reporting today that New York Senator Charles Schumer will not support President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Sorry about my cynicism, but I suspect that decision was made after a careful calculation that the treaty would be approved without his vote. I also expect that if enough Democrats refuse to support the treaty and Senator Schumer‘s vote is needed, he will somehow have a change of heart. Nevertheless, The Hill is reporting that he will not support the treaty.

Meanwhile, Fox News reported yesterday:

The shadowy Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani recently visited Moscow to meet with senior Russian leaders, according to two Western intelligence sources, despite a travel ban and U.N. Security Council resolutions barring him from leaving Iran. 

On July 24, one week before Secretary of State John Kerry testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee and faced questions about the newly struck nuclear deal, Soleimani arrived in Moscow for meetings with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and President Vladimir Putin. It was not immediately clear what the Iranian leader discussed, but the revelation comes as the United Nations and European Union arms embargo against Iran is slated to be lifted in five years as part of the comprehensive nuclear agreement announced July 14 from Vienna. 

No Senator who takes his Oath of Office seriously can honestly vote for the Iranian treaty. However, I suspect it will pass. Democrats tend to stick together, even when it involves jumping off a cliff.

This Is Just Ugly

Posted on by

Yesterday CBS News reported that the deal with Iran negotiated by America, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom and Germany will be voted on by the United Nations Security Council on Monday. Since five of the countries who negotiated the treaty with Iran are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, it is fairly certain the agreement will be adopted.

The article reports:

CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says the resolution will make the Iran nuclear deal international law, but will delay its official implementation for 90 days, to allow for the U.S. Congress’ consideration.

Falk explained that while Congress cannot block the implementation of the deal, if the legislative body votes against it and has enough votes to override a promised veto from President Obama, it is not clear what would happen next.

Whether Congress approves the treaty or not, it goes into effect internationally. Whatever happened to America? First of all, even if Congress votes against the treaty, the treaty goes into effect worldwide. So where is American sovereignty? Second of all, why do we need Congress if the Senate’s role to advise and consent to treaties has been taken out of the equation.

The article concludes:

If U.S. lawmakers were to decide after Monday’s vote that they wanted changes to the terms of the agreement, it would essentially be too late, because it would require the Security Council to propose a new resolution — and there would likely be little appetite for such deliberations among the other negotiating partners.

The chairman of the Senate’s foreign relations committee, Bob Corker, on Thursday wrote a letter to President Obama saying, “We urge you to postpone the vote at the United Nations until after Congress considers this agreement.”

But the chief U.S. negotiator in the Iran talks, Wendy Sherman, rejected that idea Thursday.

She told reporters: “It would have been a little difficult when all of the (countries negotiating with Iran) wanted to go to the United Nations to get an endorsement of this, since it is a product of the United Nations process, for us to say, ‘Well, excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress.'”

Sherman said the council resolution allows the “time and space” for a congressional review before the measure actually takes effect.

America has become internationally irrelevant.

This Really Isn’t A Surprise

Posted on by

Reuters is reporting today that Britain has told a United Nations panel in charge of sanctions on Iran that there is an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms.

The article reports:

“The UK government informed the Panel on 20 April 2015 that it ‘is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran’s Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA) and Kalay Electric Company (KEC)’,” the Panel of Experts said in its annual report. The panel monitors Iran’s compliance with the U.N. sanctions regime.

KEC is under U.N. Security Council sanctions while TESA is under U.S. and European Union sanctions due to their suspected links to banned Iranian nuclear activities.

Iran, which is has been under sanctions for years, has a long history of illicit nuclear procurement using front companies and other methods of skirting sanctions.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. Iran is not an honest negotiator, and America needs to break off talks with them at least until the American prisoners they hold are released.

 

Do We Really Want To Create A Terrorist State?

Posted on by

Yahoo News reported yesterday that the United States is not committed to a veto of the United Nations resolution to set a time frame for its withdrawal from territory Palestinians seek for a state. I don’t think there is anyone who believes that the Palestinian state would be a state that acknowledged the right of Israel to exist or that a Palestinian state would be committed to peace in the Middle East, so why would anyone encourage the existence of such a state?

The article reports:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Rome on Monday to discuss various proposals for a Palestinian state that are circulating at the United Nations.

Later on Monday, Kerry will travel to Paris for talks with European counterparts and then on to London to meet Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat and a delegation from the Arab League, who will urge the United States not to use its U.N. Security Council veto to block the proposals.

The hastily-arranged meetings suggested urgency in America’s drive to manage efforts among Security Council members to draft a new proposal before Israeli elections in March. Kerry said on Friday he wanted to defuse tensions during the talks.

Jordan has circulated a draft Palestinian resolution to the 15-member U.N. Security Council calling for Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory to end by November 2016, and the Palestinians said on Monday they could submit it in the coming days.

France, Britain and Germany are discussing another proposal, but a senior U.S. official said there was no consensus among them and the United States had not been asked to take a position.

The push for a Palestinian state is a total rewrite of history. There never has been a Palestinian state. As I have reported before, Walid Shoebat is quoted as saying, “One day during the 1960s I went to bed a Jordanian Muslim, and when I woke up the next morning, I was informed that I was now a Palestinian Muslim, and that I was no longer a Jordanian Muslim.” There was never a cry for a Palestinian state when Jordan controlled the land that is now in question.

This is the map of the land originally given to Israel in the December 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention:

Later, the boundaries were modified as shown below:

Trans-Jordan was established to be the Palestinian state. However, when the Palestinians attempted to overthrow the government of Jordan, they were thrown out. Under the present government of Gaza, there is no way a Palestinian state can be established without creating a war (possibly nuclear) in the Middle East. The United Nations resolution is not a move toward peace, it is a move toward war.

Putting The Foxes In Charge Of The Henhouse

Posted on by

CNS News is reporting today that Iran has been named to the “bureau” overseeing a month-long United Nations conference in New York aimed at finalizing a controversial global “arms trade treaty.

This is another reason to ask politely that the United Nations get out of New York and America get out of the United Nations.

The article reports:

Furthermore, according to an expert panel monitoring U.N. sanctions on Iran, Tehran continues to flout a Security Council ban on exporting its weaponry, with Syria the main recipient.

“This is like choosing Bernie Madoff to police fraud on the stock market,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a non-governmental monitoring group based in Geneva, which drew attention to Iran’s elevation to the conference bureau.

UN Watch is urging U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to condemn the move:

“He should remind the conference that the Security Council has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its prohibited nuclear program, and that Iran continues to defy the international community through illegal arms shipments to the murderous Assad regime,” Neuer said.

Good grief! The article lists the leadership positions held by Iran in recent years–despite the fact that they are in total violation of the sanctions the U.N. has placed on them. This is the equivalent of punishing a teenager for a speeding ticket by giving them a Porsche.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The History Of An Unfortunate Situation

Posted on by

On Wednesday I reported on the fate of Dr Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who helped the United States in the raid on Osama Bin Laden, who has been sentenced to 33 years in prison for conspiring against the state (rightwinggranny.com).

There is some further information on this story. The January 28, 2012, New York Times reported that:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has confirmed publicly for the first time that an imprisoned doctor in Pakistan was working with the C.I.A. to gain access to Osama bin Laden’s compound in the months before American troops killed Bin Laden last May.  

What was Secretary Panetta thinking? In the past, the United States would have had the decency to get Dr. Afridi out of Pakistan before his cover was blown. The doctor was not allowed to be present in the court that sentenced him or allowed to defend himself.

An article in the American Spectator posted today points out:

A resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council after 9/11 required member states to assist in bringing Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network to justice.

Does either the United States or the United Nations have the character to intervene in this situation?

This is the administration that gave Hollywood unprecedented access to Defense Department information to make a movie about the killing of Osama Bin Laden (which coincidentally will be released shortly before the Presidential election). Someone needs to provide the entire administration with a detailed lecture on the proper handling of classified information.

Enhanced by Zemanta