Friday, November 30, 2012

UN votes to create new jihad base against Israel

From JIhad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

That's what Gaza became, contrary to all the confident predictions that Israel's withdrawal would usher in a new era of peace, and that's what a Palestinian state would be as well. "Palestinian 'state' wins U.N. recognition," from USA Today, November 29:
The United Nations General Assembly voted Thursday 138-9 with 41 abstentions to grant Palestine non-member state status. 
The vote does not settle outstanding issues with Israel or change anything on the ground, say experts.
"We are here for a final serious attempt to achieve peace," Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas told General Assembly delegates before the vote. "Not to end the negotiation processâ?¦ rather to breath new life into the negotiation process."
Vuk JeremiÄ?, president of the General Assembly acknowledged the historical nature of the vote and called on Israeli and Palestinian leaders "to work for peace, negotiate in good faith and succeed."
Israelis say the Palestinian appeal for non-member state status will make peace less likely. Currently the Palestinian Authority has the status of U.N. observer.
Abbas went forward despite appeals to postpone the request, which the United States says will only make negotiations for a permanent state less likely to happen.
"If the Israeli authorities want to threaten my life, they can," Abbas said according to Palestinian news agency Ma'an. "The whole world realizes that the Palestinian Authority, with all its political and security services, and administrative bodies, has been ready to upgrade its status for six years."
The Israeli government did not threaten Abbas' life, but said said that peace is only achieved through negotiations, and not by unilateral declarations that do not take into consideration Israel security needs.
"Israel's hand is always extended in peace, but a Palestinian state will not be established without recognition of the state of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, without an end-of-conflict declaration, and without true security arrangements that will protect Israel and its citizens," he said Thursday.
Ahead of the vote, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch filed an amendment to a defense bill that would eliminate funding for the United Nations if the General Assembly changes Palestine's status.
"Increasing the Palestinians' role in the United Nations is absolutely the wrong approach, especially in light of recent military developments in the Middle East," he said in a statement. "Israel is one of America's closest allies, and any movement to strengthen one of its fiercest enemies must not be tolerated."
In his speech, Abbas said he"did not come here to de-legitimize a state established years ago, that is Israel. Rather we are here to affirm a state that must achieve its independence, and that is Palestine."
His bid to seek U.N.recognition was met with "an incessant flood of Israeli threats," he said, including "justification of military assaults and ethnic cleansing,particularly in east Jerusalem."
Israel's occupation "is becoming consistent with an apartheid system" that promotes "racial hatred and incitement," he said. "The window of opportunity is narrowing and time is running out."...
What incredible mendacity and projection.
Netanyahu: Palestinian State Recognition is Meaningless

Reported in United With Israel

The UN has overwhelmingly accepted “Palestine” as an observer “state”, with a similar status to the Vatican. PM Netanyahu said that it is “a meaningless decision that will not change anything on the ground.” There cannot be a Palestinian state without a settlement that guarantees the security of all citizens of Israel.

The status change may not alter the political situation, since it wouldn’t imply any legally binding recognition of sovereignty, borders, etc. However, it is certainly a Palestinian public relations victory. Furthermore, it gives the Palestinians a seat in the UN General Assembly among other member states and would potentially give them access to various UN agencies, such as the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that the ICC would view Palestine as a state despite an upgraded status, given that the Palestinians lack national unity, the capability of governance and are unable to fulfill the international obligations of a state. Yet even if the ICC accepts Palestine as a state, it isn’t certain that the ICC, which has barely dealt with Sudanese and Ugandan officials, will accept complaints against Israel. Furthermore, if Palestine accepts the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, then they are opening up the possibility that Palestinians can be tried at The Hague for war crimes. Yet Abbas is not deterred by these facts.

In fact, the Palestinians, by embarking upon this route, can face many troubles. The Palestinians could lose all of their Israeli and American financial backing, which could be greatly detrimental to the Palestinian economy if the Arab states don’t bail Abbas out. Indeed, one Palestinian told Yedioth Achronot that in his view Abbas’ UN bid represented a loss for “some countries will cut aid.” Other possible consequences could include Israel annexing Area C of Judea and Samaria, heightened tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, and a decreased likelihood of establishing a Palestinian state based upon a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.

Yet, even though this is the case, numerous countries supported the Palestinian upgrade at the United Nations in an overwhelming fashion. 138 countries voted in favor of the resolution, nine countries voted against it, and 41 countries abstained.

One reason why the Palestinian bid has been so successful in Europe is that the Palestinian draft document is designed to garner western support. As the Institute for National Security Studies asserted, “The draft explicitly refers to “a State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders.” This is a formula all West European states would endorse.” Yet still, as Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu stated, “no Palestinian state can be established without a declared resolution of the conflict and viable security arrangements that will protect the State of Israel and its citizens.”
Obama's Playing a Game of Chicken With the Economy

Obama's Playing a Game of Chicken With the Economy 

By: Donald Lambro / Townhall Columnist

It is clear by now that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner are not going to work out a full blown deal on taxes, spending and entitlements by the end of this month.
The task before them and Congress is so fraught with fiendishly complicated and politically-charged issues that the idea that a couple of people behind closed doors can come up with a broadly acceptable solution is laughable.
In fact, I'm going to go out on a cliff on this one (no pun intended) and say that there will be no final disposition of these thorny issues, known as the "fiscal cliff", until next year. Wrapping up a grand, multi-trillion dollar compromise bill in four weeks or so wasn't in the cards to begin with, and the two most important people needed to do this sent out a number of signals that they were in no rush to meet this or any other deadline.
Since the president met with congressional leaders in a post-election love-fest, pledging they were ready to work together to avoid a fiscal leap into the abyss, Obama and Boehner haven't met in two weeks. And it is reported they haven't even talked on the phone for at least a week.
Even Erskine Bowles, the Democratic co-chairman of the president's deficit-reduction commission that proposed a sweeping tax and spending reform plan to steer clear of the cliff now doubts anything will get done before the clock strikes 12 on New Year's Eve.
"It would be insane to breach this fiscal cliff, yet I think there is only a one-third possibility we'll actually get something done before December 31," Bowles confessed Tuesday at the Christian Science Monitor's newsmakers breakfast forum. "There has been no serious discussion yet about entitlement reform."
"Am I optimistic? No, but I am hopeful." he told reporters as he left a meeting in the Capitol with Boehner and other House Republican leaders this week.
The compromise Budget Act of 2011 requires Obama and Congress come up with a $1.2 trillion deficit-cutting plan for the next decade by year's end. If not, $100 billion or so will be automatically cut from defense and domestic (non-entitlement) programs on Jan. 1.
Quite frankly, if Congress can't find $100 billion in cuts in a waste-ridden, inefficient, over-staffed $3.5 trillion budget -- absent serious defense cuts -- they are not really trying.
But Obama is threatening to veto any deal that does not significantly raise tax rates on investors, small businesses and other sectors of our economy.
For his part, Boehner has sketched out part of a plan to deal with the revenue side of the equation that would raise the tax flow into the Treasury by getting rid of dozens of exemptions, credits, deductions and other loopholes that will broaden the revenue base in order to lower tax rates on individuals and corporations to boost economic growth.
Obama, who still doesn't know how to balance a budget, keeps saying the "math doesn't add up." But the tax code is filled with tax preferences worth trillions of dollars over time, without touching the holy grail of tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. It was done in the Reagan tax reforms of 1986 that slashed the top tax rate to 28 percent.
Obama often talks about standing his ground on raising the two top individual tax rates and the White House has threatened to let all the Bush tax cuts expire if he doesn't get his way. That will raise taxes for every American -- lower, middle class and upper income alike -- including the 10 percent tax rate for those in the lowest income bracket.
But Boehner feels his good faith compromise on raising new revenues by reforming and simplifying the tax code is as far as he and his party are willing go. "We're willing to put revenue on the table as long as we're not raising rates," he told reporters this week for the umpteenth time.
There is new evidence that a majority of Americans favor Boehner's approach. A national poll by the Winston Group, a Republican research firm, found that 65 percent of the Americans surveyed favored a plan to boost tax revenues that ends "special interest tax loopholes and deductions commonly used by the wealthy" rather than one that raises tax rates on "Americans earning more than $250,000."
The frightening fiscal cliff and tax cut expiration deadlines that we face are a creation of Congress that was agreed to by Obama who signed them into law. He agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010, including the top rates, for two more years because the economy was weak and unemployment was hovering over 9 percent, despite his $800 billion "stimulus" plan.
Well, unemployment remains at 8 percent, or more if you count part-timers who can't find full-time jobs, and the economic growth rate this year is averaging a mediocre 2 percent that insures high unemployment will persist for the foreseeable future. The Obama economy, economists agree, remains sluggish.
But Obama is obsessed with increasing the tax rates on investment in a severely under-capitalized economy and on small entrepreneurs who are the largest job creators.
Higher tax rates have been his all-purpose prescription for just about everything: Unemployment? Raise taxes. Weak economy? Raise taxes. Yearly trillion dollar deficits? Raise taxes.
When the history of Obama's presidency is written, it will be known as "The Age of Uncertainty." That is the legacy of his policies in a sputtering economy. Businesses are keeping their cash on the sidelines because they do not know what next year will bring. Medical device makers are laying off thousands of workers in anticipation of higher tax costs under Obamacare. Millions of Americans are getting letters announcing their health care premiums are going up next year.
As for the fiscal cliff, no sweat. Congress can extend all the tax cuts before the end of the year and rescind the automatic budget cutting deadline, giving lawmakers time to fashion the tax, spending and entitlement reforms that are needed to keep America from tumbling into insolvency.
But will Obama agree to sign such a stop-gap bill, or will he continue to play an obsessive, ideological game of chicken that threatens to send our economy into another recession?
Benghazi Probe Must Not Get Sidetracked

Benghazi Probe Must Not Get Sidetracked 

By: Diana West / Townhall Columnist

It is neither "racist" nor "sexist" to question U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's role in the Benghazi scandal. It is, however, almost entirely beside the point.

Rice wasn't making life-and-death decisions on Sept. 11, 2012, when the U.S. compound in the Libyan city of Benghazi came under attack; President Obama was. Rice, therefore, is unable to answer the all-important question about what order President Obama issued upon hearing that U.S. diplomats in Benghazi were under fire. She can't look America in the eye and answer whether the U.S. military was ordered not to rescue Americans fighting for their lives.

Nor is Rice likely to be the Obama administration official who first concocted the false narrative blaming a YouTube video for a (nonexistent) protest in Benghazi, which, the false narrative continues, "spontaneously" erupted into "unplanned" violence -- the whopper President Obama told for two full weeks.

Another key piece of the puzzle Rice is unlikely to possess is why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, three days after the Benghazi attack, was out there flogging that same concocted story, as when Clinton tried to console the father of slain ex-SEAL Tyrone Wood by promising him the video's producer would be arrested and prosecuted. Further, it is unlikely Susan Rice can explain why CIA Director David Petraeus went before the House Intelligence Committee, also on Sept. 14, in a closed session and similarly lied, deceiving members into believing that an "unplanned" attack left four Americans, including an American ambassador, dead.

These are just some of the red flags over Benghazi that can never be checked if GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire continue to monopolize the issue and focus solely on Rice and those not-all-that-interesting talking points. It's almost as if they wish to tighten the lens over Benghazi so closely that we never notice that what's really needed is a review of the administration's Arab Spring policies. It is these policies, which, thanks in large part to Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and White House adviser Samantha Power, actually put Uncle Sam on the path to jihad in Libya by supporting al-Qaida and other jihad terrorists in their bid for power. Maybe that's because the GOP largely supported these same disastrous policies, too.

Here are some of the Benghazi questions that still demand answers:

Who came up with the administration plan to discard early intelligence confirming the U.S. had sustained an al-Qaida-linked terrorist attack in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, and to seize on a lie blaming a YouTube video for the attack? Who got everyone -- White House, State, CIA (but not, it seems, Defense) -- on board? After the president addressed the United Nations on Sept. 25 (citing the video six times), the false video narrative peters out. Who called the whole thing off?

Speaking of the president's U.N. address -- notorious for declaring, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" -- who wrote it? Its underlying message that "slander" (read: free speech) of Islam causes violence dovetails neatly with the Istanbul Process, an Obama administration initiative to prohibit and even criminalize speech critical of Islam. The initiative is spearheaded by Hillary Clinton in conjunction with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an Islamic bloc of 56 nations, plus the Palestinian Authority.

President Obama stated to an outside-the-Washington-Beltway reporter that "the minute" he found out what was happening in Benghazi, he sprang into action. "Number one," the president said, "make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do."

Did Obama, in fact, issue such an order? If so, it appears to have been ignored. Shouldn't someone be fired for insubordination? If no U.S. military assets were available -- a big "if" for the sake of argument -- why weren't NATO allies such as Turkey or Britain called on to help? What exactly was the president doing during the eight-hour span of the terror attack?

On Sept. 9 and again on Sept. 10, a YouTube video featuring al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was posted online. In it, Zawahiri exhorted Libyans to attack Americans in revenge for the killing of al-Qaida senior leader Abu Yahya al-Libi. The CIA and other intelligence agencies appear to have ignored this video entirely. Why?

Why was the United States in Benghazi relying on Libyan jihadists for security? This is where we might pick up on the Arab Spring trail the Obama administration followed to this whole disaster. For example, the small CIA contingent that flew in to Benghazi in the wee hours of Sept. 12 was "aided" (delayed) on arrival by Libya Shield. Not only did this militia fight in the Libyan revolution under the black flag of al-Qaida, but U.S. government analysts believe its leader, Wissam bin Hamid, a jihadist veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, may be the leader of al-Qaida in Libya.

What was the Benghazi mission (it did not function as a consulate) doing there in the first place? Troubling reports indicate the U.S. presence in Benghazi may have been part of a secret CIA operation to run weapons to Syria's anti-Assad rebel forces, which, as was the case with Libya's anti-Gadhafi forces, include a heavy contingent of jihadist actors seeking to spread Shariah (Islamic law). Was the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens, previously point man to jihadists in Libya, party to this unauthorized operation?

Notice I haven't even mentioned Petraeus' affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. While not altogether unimportant, it is a distraction from weightier matters. For example: How can David Petraeus lie to Congress -- a felony -- and get away with it?

Ask President Obama.

The Shark Tank

Rubio Opposes U.N. Vote for Palestine’s “Observer Status” 

by Javier Manjarres / The Shark Tank

The United Nations’ General Assembly vote that acknowledged Palestine as “nonmember observer state” represents a clear victory for the committed enemies of Israel.

In a lopsided vote of 138-9, the U.N. further cemented is reputation as a safe haven of anti-Israel sentiment and completely committed to eventual creation of a Palestinian state- a state which will immediately be at war with Israel once it has been established.

U.S. government officials from both sides of the political aisle, including the U.S. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio have all registered their opposition of the measure, calling it “unfortunate” and a real detriment to the ongoing peace process with Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the speech by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the General Assembly shortly before the vote “defamatory and venomous,” saying it was “full of mendacious propaganda” against Israel.
Abbas had told the General Assembly that it was “being asked today to issue the birth certificate of Palestine.” Abbas said the vote is the last chance to save the two-state solution.-Fox News
Rubio, who recently attended a Rally for Israel in Miami, Florida,and is one of the most outspoken supporters of Israel in the Senate, took issue with Abbas’ move by calling it a “reckless endorsement by the United Nations”-
“I oppose this unilateral move by the government of president Abbas and regret its reckless endorsement by the United Nations.  True peace and international recognition of a Palestinian state can only be achieved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.  The Palestinian people would be much better served if the Palestinian Authority were to spend its energies in responding to several Israeli calls for direct negotiations.  As the Senate debates the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I am proud to be a co-sponsor of an amendment to prohibit U.S. taxpayer funding for the United Nations in the event the organization upgrades Palestine’s status from permanent observer ‘entity’ before a comprehensive peace agreement has been reached with Israel.  The Senate should swiftly adopt it.”-U.S. Senator Marco Rubio
Abbas and the Hamas led government in Gaza and the West Bank will surely consider this acknowledgement by the U.N. as yet another  positive step towards what it believes will be its eventual victory over Israel. 

The timing of this measure couldn’t have come at a worse time given the recent hostilities and terrorist attacks that Israel has endured over the past several weeks- not to mention the looming conflict between Israel and Iran that now appears inevitable. 

Something I've been saying since the election...

Trying To Secede? Don’t Waste Your Time

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Trying To Secede? Don’t Waste Your Time
I don’t know who thought of the scheme that allows citizens to petition the Federal government to allow their State to withdraw from the Union. But whoever it was sure came up with a dandy way to get a lot of good patriots spinning their wheels, wasting their time and pouring a bunch of money down the drain.

On the surface, the pitch sounds pretty appealing. Anyone who can get 150 signatures on a petition can put it on the White House website We the People. The website promises: “If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.” What qualifies as “enough support”? A minimum of 25,000 signatures.

Thus far, petitions to allow a State to secede from the union have come from all 50 States. Texas is leading the tally, with 116,070 signatures submitted the last time I checked. But six other States have also passed the 25,000 test: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and Tennessee.

As far as I can determine, the White House hasn’t issued an “official response” to any of them. As of this writing, there are 146 petitions on the website. Some 66 of them are requests for secession. (Yes, some lucky States have more than one.) And while the White House says it has responded to 82 petitions, none of the secession ones have made the list. It seems there’s a little avoidance going on.

It’s hard to quarrel with some of the assertions made in the various petitions. Consider this from the one from Texas:

“Given that the State of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect its citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.”

Of course, not everyone in Texas wants to be part of the secession movement. A group from El Paso, Texas, has submitted a petition that would allow the city to secede from the State. “El Paso is tired of being a second-class city within Texas,” the petition declares.

Eager to get in their 2 cents’ worth, some residents of Houston have submitted a petition stating that secession-minded Texans “are mentally deficient.” This group is asking for “more education in our state to eradicate their disease.”

Hmmm, are things about to get nasty in the Lone Star State?

Since anyone can submit a petition for just about anything, some pretty weird things can get posted. One petition called on President Barack Obama to “do the Hokey Pokey on national television.” That one got removed before it could garner anywhere near 25,000 signatures.

One that achieved the required minimum asks to “Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.” As someone remarked, that sounds sort of like kicking a prisoner out of jail for trying to escape, doesn’t it?

Another petition demands that States be required to pay their portion of the national debt before being allowed to secede. Since neither the States nor individual taxpayers are legally liable for money the Federal government has borrowed, it’s hard to see how this one could be implemented. No matter; the Federal government already has plans to extract as much money as possible from any American who wants to surrender his citizenship.

Since many signatures are just a first name and initial, there is no way to confirm their validity — or even that they are residents of the States whose petition they signed.

But please don’t misunderstand me: I’m not going to argue that the secession petitions need more oversight. I don’t believe there is any way to make them more practical or to increase their effectiveness. Nor do I dismiss them as just a mildly amusing distraction.

No, I think this petition movement is actually hurting the cause of liberty. It’s taking time and money away from efforts that could make a difference and channeling them into something that is simply a dangerous waste of both.

Does anyone anywhere really believe that petitions on a White House website will achieve anything positive in the battle for liberty? C’mon, folks. Those of us who believe in limited government — who want to see government spending reduced, not taxes increased — know we’ve got some mighty battles in front of us. Let’s focus our efforts where they have some chance of affecting policy, not fritter them away on meaningless efforts.

Yes, I know that the results of the last elections were somewhat discouraging. But this November wasn’t the most depressing election of my lifetime. That watershed event occurred 48 years ago, when Lyndon Baines Johnson crushed Barry Goldwater by a far bigger margin than when Obama beat Mitt Romney.

The nomination of Goldwater at the Cow Palace in San Francisco was an incredibly symbolic event. Conservatives had wrested control of the Republican Party from the East Coast establishment — the so-called Rockefeller Republicans who had controlled it for decades.

We’d done it by going outside of traditional party channels. Our weapons weren’t ballots, at least at the beginning. No, they were alternative methods of communications: films and filmstrips, meetings in living rooms, and small paperbound books that we distributed by the millions. Remember A Choice Not An Echo or None Dare Call It Treason? Some of you probably still have copies stuck in a box in a corner of your basement or garage.

Remember, these were the first elections following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In those emotion-filled days, it’s not surprising that the Democrats won the White House in a landslide, along with big majorities in the House and Senate.

For a conservative, it was disheartening to see what followed: massive new social programs as LBJ tried to build what he called the Great Society, plus huge increases our military presence in Vietnam. The results led to some of the most bitter divisions and nastiest confrontations this country has ever seen.

But in time, the pendulum started swinging back. Conservative defeats in the 1960s and ’70s led to some victories in the ’80s and ’90s. Granted, all we’ve been able to do so far is slow the growth of government; we haven’t gotten strong enough to reduce the size and power of the Federal behemoth.

But if we abandon the battlefield, we never will. If there were ever a time to stay the course and even redouble our efforts, this is it. Let’s pick some battles where we can expect a sizable number of our fellow citizens to be on our side — not ones that will drive them even farther away from us.

More on this in future columns. In the meantime, stay the course. And keep some powder dry.
–Chip Wood
Rep. Allen West's Statement on UN General Assembly Vote on Palestinian Statehood

(WASHINGTON)---Congressman Allen West (R-FL) released this statement today regarding the United Nations resolution upgrading the Palestinians' status to a nonmember observer state at the United Nations, approved by a more than two-thirds majority of the 193-member world body -- a vote of 138 to 9:

"Slowly but surely, hostile nations are tightening the noose around the sovereign State of Israel. Only those who are not students of history, Islam or the Muslim Brotherhood will be surprised by these actions.

It is naive to think this vote is solely about human rights or a homeland for Palestinian people. This vote is yet another step towards delegitimizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its undivided capital.

When the cease-fire brokered by the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egyptian government was announced, Hamas and the Palestinians celebrated it as a victory over Israel, not as a step towards peace.

The true intentions of nations such as Iran and Syria are one thing, but it is deeply disappointing when countries such as Austria, France, Italy, Norway and Spain vote in lockstep. It is unfortunate that so many in our own country, including those in this current administration, continue to ignore the reality."
As the UN screws Israel again the last laugh is on them
By: Diane Sori

Israel got the shaft again yesterday as the U(seless) N(ations) General Assembly voted 138 to 9, with 41 nations abstaining, to grant the 'so-called' Palestinians non-member observer state status.

"The only way to reach peace is through agreements between the parties, not at the UN.” said Israeli ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, in direct contrast to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' plea that this was the "last chance to save the two-state solution" with Israel.

By saying that the Palestinians will accept no less than "the independence of the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on all the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, to live in peace and security alongside the State of Israel, and a solution for the refugee issue on the basis of resolution 194," Abbas actually "violated agreements with Israel, and Israel will act accordingly" according to a statement issued immediately after the vote by Prime Minister Netanyahu's office.

This statement makes it clear to all that yesterday's vote frees Israel of its obligations under the Oslo Accords, because the vote is a blatant violation of the underlying principle of those agreements, meaning that both sides had agreed that all major issues would be resolved through direct negotiations, not through unilateral in who the hell does the U(seless) N(ations) think they are dictating new boundaries to the sovereign state of Israel.

And while yesterday's vote is really nothing but a symbolic political move in the Palestinian demand for statehood, it does allow the Palestinians to now participate in debates at the UN, and to join UN agencies and bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The most barbaric criminals of all becoming part of the International Criminal Court...the lunacy of this is just beyond belief.

But then again when it comes to the U(seless) N(ations) common sense and logic goes right out the window.

And how did this vote happen...the timing says it all.  If this vote had been taken while Hamas was raining rockets down on Israel, this cleverly calculated move by Palestinian officials of asking countries to recognize an independent Palestinian state (with borders following the ceasefire lines which separated Israel and the West Bank before June 1967... including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, all occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War) might never have gone their way. 

Knowing these are the borders the Palestinians want, Benjamin Netanyahu completely, totally, and rightly so has publicly rejected these territorial lines as a basis for any negotiations because they are 'unrealistic' and 'indefensible' leaving Israel at some points only 8 miles wide...easily overrun by her with this vote NOT caring about Netanyahu's concerns, the countries of the world have now shown Israel that they really must go it alone.

And Netanyahu fully realizing that Israel would face a diplomatic defeat said that regardless of how many countries voted against Israel, "no force in the world will get me to compromise on Israel's security nor could any force in the world ever sever the thousands-year-old tie between the Jewish people and the land of Israel.”

Netanyahu said that the decision will "Not change anything on the ground. It will not further the establishment of a Palestinian state, but will make it more distant."

And I so agree as somethings are just NOT open to a divided Jersusalem will NEVER happen...the U(seless) N(ations be damned.

And just so people don't forget, here is history lesson 101...there are NO such thing as Palestinians...NO such thing at all.  The idea of a ‘Palestinian people’ with a language, culture and nationality all their own, is something created by former PLO head Yasser Arafat in the 1960's. This creation was embellished upon by the surrounding Arab nations and the media after the humiliating Arab defeat to Israel in the '67 war.  Today’s so-called ‘Palestinian people’ are just regular run of the mill Arabs who speak Arabic, whose religion, or should I say whose cult is islam, and whose real culture is shared by the surrounding Arab countries.

And remember, these Arabs had a was called Trans-Jordan back in 1948 when Israel was formed, but their own Jordanian people didn't want them then and they still don't want them now.

So, the bottom line is that yesterday the U(seless) N(ations) gave observer state status to a people that don't even exist...and we're supposed to take this organization seriously...I don't think so.

And if it wasn't such a serious issue concerning Israel, the U(seless) N(ations) vote would actually be laughable...just as they are.