<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; veto</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/veto/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:51:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Will the UN Security Council Impose a Palestinian State?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/will-the-un-security-council-impose-a-palestinian-state/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=will-the-un-security-council-impose-a-palestinian-state</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/will-the-un-security-council-impose-a-palestinian-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2014 05:25:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Puder]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinian state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Only a potential U.S. veto stands in the way.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Fnazis.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244238" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Fnazis.jpg" alt="Fnazis" width="297" height="198" /></a>January, 2015 does not bode well for Israel at the United Nations (UN). The UN Security Council (UNSC) will officially induct five newly elected non-permanent member-states replacing outgoing Rwanda, S. Korea, Australia, Argentina and Luxembourg, representing all the global regions. Unfortunately for Israel, the incoming states, particularly Venezuela and Malaysia, are hostile to the Jewish state. The other three, Angola, New Zealand, and Spain are pondering their position on recognizing Palestine as a full member-state of the UN.</p>
<p>It is apparent that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will seize the opportunity and try to win an almost guaranteed majority on the UNSC, to grant Palestine full UN membership. In Abbas’ calculations, receiving UNSC recognition will enable him to demand that the UNSC set a deadline for Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 line. At the same time, he’ll avoid having to negotiate peace with Israel, or make any concessions to the Jewish state.</p>
<p>The Palestinians need nine votes at the UNSC to win acceptance. They previously received seven. This time it appears that they may achieve their goal. Among the five permanent members, China and Russia are likely to support recognition of a Palestinian State. Britain and France are yet undecided, and the U.S will likely object.</p>
<p>Among the ten non-permanent states on the UNSC, Chad will support a Palestinian state, Chile is leaning towards acceptance, Lithuania is likely to object, and Nigeria is still undecided. Malaysia and Venezuela will definitely support the Palestinian quest. If we are to anticipate the votes of the undecided members based on their November 29, 2012 <a href="http://www.un.org/press/en/2012/ga11317.doc.htm">votes</a> at the General Assembly, to accord Palestine “non-member Observer State status,” it is more than likely that Angola, Nigeria, and Spain will also vote for acceptance. This would give the Palestinians 10 votes and full membership in the UN.</p>
<p>The only thing that can prevent the acceptance of Palestine as a member-state of the UN is a U.S. veto. In lieu of the tense relationship between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government, Israel can no longer count on a US veto as a given. According to <em>YnetNews.com </em>(October 19, 2014) “Diplomatic officials said Israel is taking into bracing for a bad scenario in which the Democrats <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4581556,00.html">lose</a> their Senate majority in the midterm elections, and will then be free of obligations, which might lead them to get back at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for all the public clashes with the Democratic administration at the White House.”</p>
<p>PM Benjamin Netanyahu told the Israeli parliament (Knesset) on Monday (October 27, 2014): “I don’t see pressure on the Palestinians. I see only pressure on Israel to make more and more concessions…The Palestinians are demanding of us to establish a Palestinian state – without peace and without security. They demand withdrawal to the 1967 lines, admitting refugees and dividing Jerusalem – and after all these exaggerated demands they are not prepared to agree to the <a href="http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Newsheadlineslist.aspx">basic condition</a> for peace between two peoples – mutual recognition!”</p>
<p>The U.S. has been reluctant to use its veto power at the UNSC, especially the Obama administration. Yet, the Obama administration in February, 2011 cast its first-ever veto at the UNSC, blocking a Palestinian-backed draft resolution that denounced <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/israel.html?nav=el">Israel&#8217;s</a> settlement policy as an illegal obstacle to peace efforts in the Middle East. In the case of a vote on Palestinian statehood, the U.S. is likely to pressure other UNSC member-states not to support the Palestinian move by offering alternatives such as the revival of peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel. But, the fact that President Obama this time is not seeking reelection, and is unlikely to be deterred by Republican criticism, America’s veto must be considered uncertain at best.</p>
<p>The Europeans are seeking to position themselves somewhere between the U.S. and the Palestinian position. While they may abstain in the vote on Palestinian statehood, they will demand a set of parameters for a permanent agreement that will eventually lead to a Palestinian state. These parameters might include Israel’s withdrawal to the June, 1967 line with land swaps and East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.</p>
<p>According to the <em>European Jewish Congress</em> press, “France will <a href="http://www.eurojewcong.org/News%20and%20Views/7091-france-to-abstain-at-un-security-council-vote-on-palestinian-un-bid-britain-will-have-the-same-position.html">abstain</a> at the UNSC vote on Palestinian UN bid, and Britain will do the same.” The French Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that “While the region is experiencing upheaval, the legitimacy of the Palestinian aspiration for statehood is indisputable. However, the Palestinian request has no chance of success in the UNSC due, in particular, to the opposition expressed by the U.S.” In other words, the Europeans wish to exculpate themselves in appeasing the Arab-Muslim world and their own Muslim constituents, while putting the onus on the U.S.</p>
<p>The Europeans, the State Department, and New York Times to name a few, are unwilling to fully consider the consequences of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, under unrelenting pressure from the above institutions, brought it numerous wars and unending terror. Israel removed 9,000 Jewish residents by force, destroyed their homes, but left their green-houses to the Palestinians. Hamas terrorists in Gaza have used the areas vacated by the Jewish residents as a base to lob over 10,000 rockets on communities throughout Israel.</p>
<p>A Palestinian state in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza is unlikely to be demilitarized, and Hamas can be counted on to take over within a short time. Iran would immediately rush in heavy arms, and as a sovereign state, these arms shipments would arrive unhindered by air or sea. This would mean that even short range rockets from east of Jerusalem will target and hit Israel’s main population centers, including its international Ben Gurion airport. Israel would be paralyzed, and its economy and security in shambles. Any Israeli government will be compelled to react with force, and that would bring about international condemnation by the UN, and possibly sanctions. In addition, one can anticipate a regional war that might involve Iran’s nuclear weapons, and tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets fired at Israel.</p>
<p>At a press conference on July 11, 2014, Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/benjamin-netanyahu-palest_n_5598997.html">relinquish security</a> control of the territory west of the Jordan River.”</p>
<p>British PM David Cameron opined that, “We support Palestine having its own state next to a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8781566/David-Cameron-Britain-wants-to-see-a-Palestinian-state.html">secure Israel</a>…In the end we have to recognize we will get a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli state by the Palestinians and the Israelis sitting down and talking to each other.”</p>
<p>US Department of State Spokeswoman Jen Psaki stated at a press briefing Friday (October 3, 2014), “We believe <a href="http://en.ria.ru/politics/20141004/193633372/Palestine-Not-Ready-for-Statehood-US-Department-of-State.html">international recognition</a> of a Palestinian state is premature. We certainly support Palestinian statehood but it can only come through a negotiated outcome, a resolution of final status issues and mutual recognition by both parties. I don’t think that we’ve seen evidence that they’re willing and able to either at this point in time.”</p>
<p>Mahmoud Abbas has been greatly encouraged by the Swedish and British parliaments votes to recognize a Palestinian state. Moreover, the new makeup of the UN Security Council as of January, 2015 will give him a tailwind to push for statehood. Only a U.S. veto at the UNSC can stop this madness, and compel Abbas to negotiate with Israel in earnest. Perhaps, in the interim, the Palestinians can evolve into a civil society with the rule of law, discard terror and incitement against Israel, and build a viable economy.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/will-the-un-security-council-impose-a-palestinian-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Russia Steamrolls Over the United Nations</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/russia-steamrolls-over-the-united-nations/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=russia-steamrolls-over-the-united-nations</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/russia-steamrolls-over-the-united-nations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crimea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ukraine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221162</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The reemergence of an old era. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/03ED2C87-A736-4FAF-95EA-FA842A4B8D43_w640_r1_s.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-221178" alt="03ED2C87-A736-4FAF-95EA-FA842A4B8D43_w640_r1_s" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/03ED2C87-A736-4FAF-95EA-FA842A4B8D43_w640_r1_s.jpg" width="256" height="188" /></a>In the phony Crimean referendum held on Sunday March 16th, 95.5% of voters in Crimea have supported joining Russia, Russian officials say. The vote was boycotted by many Crimeans loyal to the Ukraine central government in Kiev, including Tartars who make up about 12% of the Crimean population. Sergei Aksyonov, Crimea&#8217;s leader installed last month after the Russians effectively occupied Crimea, announced that his government will formally apply on Monday to join the Russian Federation. Shortly after the polls closed, the Obama administration issued a statement rejecting the referendum.</span></p>
<p>The United Nations Security Council voted Saturday March 15th on a draft resolution addressing the Ukrainian crisis, which was supposed to send a signal to Russia to back off from moving ahead to absorb Crimea into Russia. It doesn’t seem to have had any effect. Russia has said that it will respect the results of the referendum.</p>
<p>Thirteen members voted in favor of the draft Security Council resolution. China abstained. Only Russia, not surprisingly, voted no, which killed the resolution because of Russia’s veto power. In the best line of all the statements made by members of the Security Council following the vote, France’s UN Ambassador, Gerard Araud, exclaimed that “Russia vetoed the UN Charter.”</p>
<p>The vetoed draft resolution began with a reference to Article II of the UN Charter, which calls for member states to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. It cited bilateral and multilateral agreements that Russia had signed guaranteeing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. It stressed the importance of maintaining an inclusive political dialogue in Ukraine that “includes representation from all parts of Ukraine,” and reaffirmed the Security Council’s “commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.” Finally, in keeping with these principles, the draft resolution criticized the Crimean referendum to endorse the secession of Crimea and absorption into the Russian Federation. It declared that “this referendum can have no validity, and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea,” and called upon all member states and international organizations “not to recognize any alteration of the status of Crimea on the basis of this referendum.”</p>
<p>In the midst of the discussions following the Security Council vote, Ukrainian UN Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev made the dramatic announcement that he had just been informed of the movement of Russian troops from Crimea into the Ukraine mainland, signifying a dangerous expansion of Russia’s aggressive moves into Ukrainian sovereign territory. “Stop the aggressor,” he pleaded to the Security Council. His plea came two days after Ukrainian interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk turned toward the Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, and bluntly asked whether &#8220;Russians want war.&#8221; Ambassador Churkin responded that neither the Russian government nor the Russian people wanted war.</p>
<p>Perhaps the Russian people themselves don’t want war, but Russian President Vladimir Putin takes no stock of what the Russian people may think or want if he has a different opinion. He has turned the Soviet Union Communist dictatorship into a pre-Soviet style Russian imperial oligarchy under one-man political rule. Now, as the New York Times described the situation in Crimea,</p>
<blockquote><p>“[W]ith a mix of targeted intimidation, an expansive military occupation by unmistakably elite Russian units and many of the trappings of the election-season carnivals that have long accompanied rigged ballots across the old Soviet world, Crimea has been swept almost instantaneously into the Kremlin’s fold.”</p></blockquote>
<p>The provocative actions of Russian forces inside Crimea, and now possibly within the Ukrainian mainland, speak louder than Ambassador Churkin’s assurances of Russia’s peaceful intentions.</p>
<p>Russia’s persistent attempt to justify the Crimean referendum as an exercise in self-determination is, as Ambassador Power said last Thursday in response to my question regarding this Russian assertion, nothing more than an attempt to define self-determination as “Russia-determination.”</p>
<p>In deference to the principle of territorial integrity, international law is loath to recognize a unilateral right of secession for all peoples. Russia acknowledges in principle that secession is justified in only exceptional circumstances, but claims that what it calls a coup d’état in Ukraine by “radicals” justifies the right of the Crimean people to secede from Ukraine if they wish. The problem with this argument is that it is not up to Russia to determine the legality of the change of government in Kiev and, on that basis, inject its own military presence in Crimea in support of the referendum.</p>
<p>Russia is free to accept as citizens in its own country Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine who no longer feel safe living in Ukraine under present circumstances. But the Tartar minority now living freely in Crimea, who have suffered deportation and killings at the hands of the Soviets when they controlled Ukraine, have nowhere else to go and remain safe. Crimea is their homeland. Russia of all countries, given its past brutal treatment of the indigenous Tartar population in Crimea, has no business forcing its will to favor one ethnic group over another in an independent country on the other side of internationally recognized borders with Russia.</p>
<p>In any case, Russia’s oft-stated rationale for providing military support to the Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine &#8212; that these citizens’ rights are being violated by ultra-nationalist “radicals” entering Crimea from other parts of Ukraine &#8211; is bogus. According to international monitors who have tried to gather evidence of human rights violations in Crimea and elsewhere in Ukraine, no evidence to date has been found to back up the Russian claim. And Russia and its allies in Crimea are not providing any support for such international monitors to enter Crimea safely, suggesting that it is they who have something to hide.</p>
<p>As for Russia’s superficial comparison of the Crimea referendum to Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008, United Kingdom’s UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant summed up the response best in his remarks to reporters after Saturday’s UN Security Council meeting:</p>
<blockquote><p>There is no comparison between the two cases. The Kosovo vote for independence, declaration of independence, came after a brutal war in which, as you say, there were massive human rights abuses; hundreds of thousands of people were killed, and the Security Council Resolution 1244 itself accepted that the status of Kosovo was disputed. None of those conditions apply in Crimea.</p></blockquote>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In his remarks on Saturday explaining Russia’s veto, Ambassador Churkin lashed out at both the proposed resolution and its supporters. He accused Ukraine of having blood on its hands as a result of the violent protests last month that led to the ousting of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko. And he challenged Washington “to tell the truth” about its own role in the events leading up to the crisis.</span></p>
<p>Speaking about truth, U.S Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said during her condemnation of Russia’s veto that, while Russia has the power to veto a Security Council resolution, “it does not have the power to veto the truth.&#8221; She placed the blamed for the crisis squarely on Russia’s shoulders:</p>
<blockquote><p>The crisis came with a label &#8211; made in Moscow.  It was Moscow that ordered its armed forces to seize control of key facilities in Crimea, to bully local officials, and to threaten the country&#8217;s eastern border.  It was Moscow that tried to fool the world with a false narrative about extremism and the protection of human rights &#8211; about refugees fleeing, and about attacks on synagogues. The reality is that the part of Ukraine where minorities are threatened is Crimea, where Russian forces have confronted Ukrainians, and spread fear within the Tatar community - which has endured Russian purges and ethnic cleansing in the past and fears now that this bitter past will serve as prologue.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ambassador Power accused Russia of double standards when it came to the issue of territorial integrity, a principle which Russia has supported in the past. As for the Crimean referendum, the “whole world knows,” Ambassador Power said, that it “was hatched in the Kremlin and midwifed by the Russian military. It is inconsistent with Ukraine&#8217;s constitution and international law. It is illegitimate and it will have no legal effect.”</p>
<p>Russia had not a single supporter on the Security Council. No other member spoke out in favor of the Russian position. Most of the members forcefully condemned Russia’s actions and rationales. Some noted the cardinal UN Charter principles at stake, as well as Russia’s violation of its own bilateral and multilateral agreements with Ukraine in which it promised to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine.</p>
<p>China, while abstaining and raising concerns about the timing of the resolution, emphasized its consistent support of the principle of territorial integrity and the need for political dialogue. Its Ambassador Liu Jieyi was the voice of moderation and reconciliation, suggesting the establishment of an international coordinating mechanism to discuss the crisis, restraint by all parties to the conflict and increased financial assistance to Ukraine through international institutions.</p>
<p>The price Russia will pay for its naked aggression against Ukraine will, at minimum, be international isolation and sanctions. Secretary of State John Kerry has warned of serious consequences for Russia as early as Monday if Russia does not back off.  The European Foreign Ministers will be meeting on Monday. The United Kingdom’s UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant told reporters after the Security Council session adjourned that “[I]f the referendum goes ahead on Sunday, then I think we can see a reaction from the European leaders on Monday.”</p>
<p>Sanctions and asset freezes may be too little too late. Moreover, Putin can retaliate, causing severe disruptions to American and European businesses operating in Russia and cutting off fuel supplies to Europe. Moreover, Asian countries are far from likely to participate in any sanctions.</p>
<p>There is only one language that Putin understands – military pressure. That means, at minimum, an announcement by the Obama administration that it will install missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic after all. And, for good measure, the Obama administration should make clear that it will plan for installation of such systems and other highly sophisticated military equipment in the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and in western Ukraine if Russia does not immediately withdraw its troops back to where they belong.</p>
<p>Today Russia stands exposed as an outlaw state operating in the same manner that led to two World Wars. As French UN Ambassador Araud noted, “We are going back to 1914, and we are in 2014.”</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>Daniel Greenfield </strong>on <strong>The</strong> <strong>Glazov Gang </strong>discussing <em>Obama&#8217;s Helplessness Over the Ukraine</em>:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6Se7vaS-INo" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><b>Make sure to </b><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/russia-steamrolls-over-the-united-nations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bloomberg vs. CAIR&#8217;s Interfaith Friends</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/bloomberg-vs-cairs-interfaith-friends/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bloomberg-vs-cairs-interfaith-friends</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/bloomberg-vs-cairs-interfaith-friends/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 04:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan Mauro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bloomberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAIR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nypd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stop and frisk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=195592</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New York City mayor vows to veto bill supported by Muslim Brotherhood front groups and the ACLU. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/bloomberg-nypd.png"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-195593" alt="bloomberg-nypd" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/bloomberg-nypd.png" width="250" height="176" /></a>The Shoulder-to-Shoulder Campaign, an interfaith coalition allied with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), is praising the passage of two bills by the New York City Council aimed at stopping the alleged abuses of the NYPD. Mayor Bloomberg says he will veto the bills, even though they passed with enough support to override it.</span></b></p>
<p>The passed bills, the End Discriminatory Profiling Bill and NYPD Oversight Bill, outraged Mayor Bloomberg and NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. The latter bill requires the overseeing of the NYPD by an independent Inspector-General. The former opens the door for the NYPD to be sued in state court for policies that disproportionately affect certain ages, genders, sexual orientations or housing statuses.</p>
<p>Mayor Bloomberg considers the bills to be a matter of “life and death” vows to “not give up for one minute.”</p>
<p>“The bill would allow virtually everyone in New York City to sue the Police Department and individual police officers over the entire range of law enforcement functions they perform,” Kelly <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/nyregion/new-york-city-council-votes-to-increase-oversight-of-police-dept.html">explained</a>.</p>
<p>He said the result will be skyrocketing liability costs, the unnecessary use of resources and an overall decrease in effectiveness.</p>
<p>When asked about the so-called problem of NYPD racial profiling, Bloomberg dismissively said, “Nobody racially profiles.” He made perhaps the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/nyregion/bloomberg-says-math-backs-police-stops-of-minorities.html">most politically-incorrect statement</a> of his career in defense of the NYPD:</p>
<p>“…They just keep saying, ‘Oh it’s a disproportionate percentage of a particular ethnic group.’ That may be, but it’s not a disproportionate percentage of those who witnesses and victims describe as committing the murder. In that case, incidentally, I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little.”</p>
<p>Bloomberg <a href="http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/06/30/bloomberg-wont-apologize-for-remarks-on-stop-and-frisk/">refuses</a> to apologize. “The numbers clearly show that the stops are generally proportionate with suspect’s descriptions,” he said.</p>
<p>The bills were aggressively supported by the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), joined by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU has often <a href="http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/aclu%E2%80%99s-islamist-friends">allied itself with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network</a> that CAIR and ISNA belong to.</p>
<p>CAIR’s chapter in New York is among its more radical ones. Former CAIR-NY director <a href="http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/cair-official-sued-defamation">Cyrus McGoldrick</a> has sent out tweets with anti-law enforcement rhetoric and support for Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and the destruction of Israel.</p>
<p>CAIR-NY board president <a href="http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/cair-official-candidate-ny-city-council">Zead Ramadan</a> refused to condemn Hamas in December 2011 and has portrayed American-Muslims as a brutally-repressed minority on Iranian state TV. Another board member, Lamis Deek, has praised Hamas, supports the elimination of Israel and <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/3489/cair-official-sees-nypd-cia-israeli-conspiracy">claims</a> that the NYPD has a secret alliance with Israel to target Muslims. Deek also <a href="http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/cair-officials-celebrate-muslim-brotherhood-victory">supported</a> the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt as a blow to American “imperialism.”</p>
<p>The Shoulder-to-Shoulder Campaign, an interfaith political coalition that includes ISNA as a member, celebrated the bills’ passage. ISNA is so proud of its work in putting together the coalition that it <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/isna-discusses-interfaith-success-with-erdogan/">highlighted it as a crowning achievement</a> when it met with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan in May.</p>
<p>The Campaign’s <a href="http://shouldertoshouldercampaign.org/members/">members</a> include American Baptist Churches USA, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ and many others.</p>
<p>ISNA and its interfaith allies’ fight with the NYPD reached out a whole other level when the news broke that officers had been shown <a href="http://www.clarionproject.org/"><i>The Third Jihad</i></a>, which Police Commissioner Ray Kelly appeared in. The film discusses the Islamist threat to American and mentions that ISNA and CAIR are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.</p>
<p>Shoulder-to-Shoulder responded by writing a <a href="http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2355">writing a letter</a> to Mayor Bloomberg blasting the NYPD and the <a href="http://www.clarionproject.org/">Clarion Project</a>, the producer of the film, for promoting a negative image of Muslims—even though the film is narrated by a devout Muslim.</p>
<p>In its May/June magazine, ISNA <a href="http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/isna-decries-nypds-counterterrorism-operations">fired at the NYPD</a> and made the Department sound like New York City Muslims are being intimidated into silence and are even afraid to pray in public. In an almost comical blow to its own credibility, ISNA’s article said “Muslim terrorism is not a threat after 9/11.”</p>
<p>Mayor Bloomberg <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/ryan-mauro/mayor-bloomberg%E2%80%99s-jihad-tv-partnership/">doesn&#8217;t have the strongest anti-Islamist credentials</a>, but his standing on the side of the NYPD against the CAIR-supported bill is something he should be praised for. He previously defended the NYPD when it faced an avalanche of criticism for its reasonable counter-terrorism efforts, such as <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/ryan-mauro/nypd-under-fire-for-investigating-muslim-students-association/">investigating Muslim Students Association chapters with evidence of extremism.</a></p>
<p>Bloomberg’s veto will be overridden if none of the <a href="http://council.nyc.gov/html/home/home.shtml">New York City Council</a> members change their mind. It is up to residents to convince them not to believe the hysteria of CAIR and its interfaith allies.</p>
<p><em>This article was sponsored by the <a href="http://www.theird.org/">Institute on Religion and Democracy.</a></em></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/bloomberg-vs-cairs-interfaith-friends/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>United Nations Ignores Al-Qaeda Link to Syrian Rebels</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/united-nations-ignores-al-qaeda-link-to-syrian-rebels/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=united-nations-ignores-al-qaeda-link-to-syrian-rebels</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/united-nations-ignores-al-qaeda-link-to-syrian-rebels/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 04:35:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=139612</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. rapidly entangles itself in an unsavory proxy war. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AleppoIslamists_31072012.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-139616" title="AleppoIslamists_31072012" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AleppoIslamists_31072012.gif" alt="" width="375" height="246" /></a>A day after Kofi Annan, the Joint Special Envoy for the UN and the League of Arab States for the Syrian Crisis, announced his decision to resign in frustration over the failure of the United Nations Security Council to pass a strong resolution that would enforce compliance with his six-point Syrian peace plan, Arab League members led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar went to the UN General Assembly for a symbolic vote on a resolution strongly condemning the Assad regime. The resolution said nothing about al Qaeda and other Islamist jihadists who are hijacking the armed opposition and committing their own atrocities.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/L.57">final draft resolution</a> passed on August 3rd, with 133 in favor, 31 abstaining and 12 against. In order to secure more votes in favor of the resolution, the measure&#8217;s Arab League sponsors had to water down its text.  They agreed to remove a demand that President Assad resign. They also agreed to water down a call for other nations to impose sanctions on Syria. Without such dilution, the resolution would most likely have failed to gain a supporting majority.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the final resolution text retained its focus of condemnation on the Syrian regime. It called out the “the increasing use by the Syrian authorities of heavy weapons, including indiscriminate shelling from tanks and helicopters, in population centres and the failure to withdraw its troops and the heavy weapons to their barracks…”</p>
<p>After reciting a long litany of &#8220;widespread and systematic gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities and pro-government militias,&#8221; the resolution made only a glancing reference to possible &#8220;human rights abuses by armed opposition groups.&#8221; While condemning all violence, &#8220;irrespective of where it comes from,&#8221; the resolution said that it was up to the Syrian regime to take the &#8220;first step in the cessation of violence.&#8221;</p>
<p>The General Assembly resolution also took a swipe at the Security Council &#8211; and, by implication, the two permanent members Russia and China that had used their veto power in that chamber to block a Security Council resolution calling for sanctions. The General Assembly resolution deplored &#8220;the failure of the Security Council to agree on measures to ensure the compliance of Syrian authorities with its decisions.&#8221;</p>
<p>Unlike the Security Council, which under the UN Charter has enforcement powers to back up its resolutions, General Assembly resolutions are unenforceable. The General Assembly resolution does not change a thing on the ground in Syria. Kofi Annan&#8217;s peace plan remains dead in the water. The UN observer mission in Syria has been unable to conduct any significant monitoring, has shrunk to about half of its original size and may well be removed altogether when its mandate runs out later this month. The violence continues unabated.  Arms are being sent by Russia and Iran to the Assad regime. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are arming the opposition.  Atrocities committed by the Assad regime are being increasingly mirrored by atrocities committed by the armed opposition, particularly as al Qaeda and other outside jihadist groups continue to increase their presence in Syria.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the spin machine was on full display after the General Assembly vote as if some kind of game-changing event had taken place.</p>
<p>The Saudi Arabian UN Ambassador Abdallah Y. al-Mouallimi hailed the vote as a major diplomatic victory against the Assad regime. He said that he hopes &#8220;the message will be heard in Moscow and Bejing,&#8221; in an obvious reference to the double veto of the last Security Council resolution by Russia and China. His hopes were quickly dashed when Russia and China supported Syria in voting against the resolution, along with the likes of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. While Russia and China could not veto the General Assembly resolution, as they had in the Security Council, there was no sign of any softening of their position. Indeed, Russia&#8217;s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin charged that the resolution was very one-sided, evidencing &#8220;blatant support for the armed opposition.&#8221;</p>
<p>France, as usual, took the lead for the West in expressing vehement public support for anything that could be done to humiliate and help bring down the Assad regime.</p>
<p>French UN Ambassador Gérard Araud, who is also the president of the Security Council this month, praised the &#8220;colossal majority&#8221; that voted in favor of the General Assembly resolution. He said:</p>
<blockquote><p>I think it is obvious that there is a wide consensus in the international community to say to the government of Syria: &#8216;You have to cease the indiscriminate violence against the civilians, the violations of the Human Rights, the violations of the Humanitarian law when you shell civilian neighbourhoods and you have to enter into a political dialogue.&#8217;</p></blockquote>
<p>British UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said his country was pleased that &#8220;an overwhelming majority&#8221; of the General Assembly had voted for &#8220;a tough resolution on Syria which condemns the brutality, the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Syrian regime.&#8221;</p>
<p>When I asked Ambassador Grant what he would say to critics of the resolution who complained that it was not balanced, and specifically that it did not take note of the role of al Qaeda and other Islamist jihadist groups as part of the armed opposition, he declared that the resolution was not meant to be balanced.  He painted a benign picture of the opposition, insisting that it &#8220;had to take up arms to defend itself and to defend its civilian neighbourhoods.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not to be outdone, however, Syrian UN Ambassador Bashar Ja&#8217;afari accused the resolution&#8217;s main sponsors, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain, of being hypocritical &#8220;despotic oligarchies.&#8221; The Syrian ambassador said of the Gulf countries providing arms to the opposition, “You cannot be a fireman and arsonist at the same time.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/united-nations-ignores-al-qaeda-link-to-syrian-rebels/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two Shades of Evil Battle in Syria</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/two-shades-of-evil-battle-in-syria/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=two-shades-of-evil-battle-in-syria</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/two-shades-of-evil-battle-in-syria/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 04:13:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Susan Rice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=138188</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Western diplomats rally for action outside of the U.N., but a U.S. ally is not waiting in the wings. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/668764-syria-protest.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-138232" title="668764-syria-protest" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/668764-syria-protest.gif" alt="" width="375" height="248" /></a>Russia and China predictably vetoed the proposed United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing sanctions against the Syrian regime, which was submitted for a vote on July 19th by the United Kingdom.</p>
<p>The rejected resolution would have placed Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan&#8217;s six-point peace plan under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. If it had passed, the Security Council would have been able to authorize a range of diplomatic and economic sanctions (but no military action) against the Syrian government should it continue to fail to comply with all elements of the plan and Syria&#8217;s prior commitments, including to stop using heavy weapons and to withdraw its troops from major population centers.</p>
<p>The final vote was 11 in favor, 2 against and 2 abstentions (Pakistan and South Africa). But the two vetoes killed the resolution. It was the third time Russia and China have used their veto power to block Security Council resolutions on Syria.</p>
<p>Just as predictable as the vetoes themselves was the schoolyard denunciations and finger-pointing that followed the vote.</p>
<p>&#8220;The first 2 vetoes by Russia and China were very destructive,&#8221; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told the Security Council after the vote. &#8220;This veto is even more dangerous and deplorable.&#8221;</p>
<p>Rice proceeded to label as &#8220;paranoid, if not disingenuous&#8221; Russia&#8217;s claims that the resolution would have paved the way for foreign military intervention. She called on Russia and China to stop protecting Assad &#8220;before too many thousands more die.&#8221;</p>
<p>Rice concluded her remarks to the Security Council by saying that it had &#8220;failed utterly in its most important task on its agenda this year,&#8221; and she complained of yet &#8220;another dark day in Turtle Bay.&#8221;</p>
<p>Continuing the same refrain while answering questions from the press, Rice said that &#8220;I think history will judge those that three times have blocked Council action quite harshly.&#8221;</p>
<p>Needless to say, the Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin saw things very differently. He called the proposed resolution &#8220;biased&#8221; for threatening sanctions against only one side in the conflict and containing no means to prevent arms shipments to the opposition. Rice had said that the opposition would be covered, but did not elaborate how this would be accomplished.</p>
<p>Ambassador Churkin labeled the proposed resolution an &#8220;open path&#8221; to outside military intervention. He accused the West of &#8220;fanning the flames of confrontation&#8221; in the Security Council and standing by while the armed opposition committed terrorist acts such as the bombing in Damascus that claimed the lives of three high-level Assad loyalists. He mocked the &#8220;pious rhetoric&#8221; of those pressing for Assad&#8217;s downfall, declaring that it&#8217;s all about the West&#8217;s desire to remove Iran&#8217;s key ally in the Arab world.  &#8220;A major geopolitical battle is being fought in the fields of Syria,&#8221; Churkin said.</p>
<p>The deadlocked Security Council was like an episode of &#8220;Back to the Future&#8221; when Cold War geopolitics regularly paralyzed the UN body.  All it could do in this case, a day after the Chapter VII resolution was vetoed, was to extend for a final thirty-day period the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS), which consists of some 300 unarmed UN observers in Syria. Its purpose was to monitor the situation on the ground and compliance with the stillborn Kofi Annan peace plan, but it had recently suspended its regular patrols due to the escalating violence in the country and was mainly confined to its hotel facilities. The head of the mission, General Robert Mood, has resigned.  All UNSMIS can really do during the next thirty days is to arrange for an orderly withdrawal.</p>
<p>Whether Syrian President Assad can survive will depend on a number of factors, none of which will have much of anything to do with the UN.  If rebel forces continue to penetrate his inner circle with more devastating attacks like the bombing last week in Damascus, defections will rise. If the defections hit a critical mass, Assad&#8217;s future will be in serious jeopardy.</p>
<p>Nadim Shehadi, a Middle East analyst at Chatham House in London, was quoted in the Guardian that the assassinations in Damascus would have a major impact. &#8220;People will be deciding whether to defect or not,&#8221; he said, &#8220;and the Russians will be wondering if they have backed the wrong horse.&#8221;</p>
<p>Assad may end up following his wife, who is said to have already left the country and gone to Russia. Another possibility is a divided Syria in which Assad and his Alawite supporters would control coastal territory, enabling Russia to maintain its port. But in the short run at least, all indications are that Assad intends to fight on with heavy weapons and possibly even his stockpiled chemical weapons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/two-shades-of-evil-battle-in-syria/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 583/612 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 02:41:50 by W3 Total Cache -->