DERSHOWITZ UNLEASHES: OBAMA AN 'APPALLING PRESIDENT' Calls him 'one of the worst ever'

Famed lawyer and liberal icon Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, is blasting Barack Obama as an “appalling president” for stabbing Israel in the back, with his decision to allow the U.S. to abstain from, and essentially support, a U.N. resolution last week. In an interview with Fox News, Dershowitz said: “What he (Obama) did was so nasty. He pulled a bait-and-switch. He said to the American public: This is all about the settlements deep in the West Bank. And yet he allowed his representative to the U.N. abstain, which is really [support] for, a resolution that says the Jews can’t pray at the Western Wall, Jewish … students can’t go to Hebrew University, Jewish and Arab patients can’t go to Hadassah hospital, Jews can’t live in the Jewish Quarter, where they’ve lived for thousands of years, and he’s going to say, ‘Whoops, I didn’t mean that.’ “Well, read the resolution!” he said. “You’re a lawyer!” 

On Friday, Obama had his U.N. representative abstain from a vote on a resolution that demands Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.” t also calls for the Jewish state to be restricted to the borders it had before the 1967 war, when it was attacked by its Arab neighbors. Critics said it effectively strips Israel of any bargaining power in any future peace negotiations by forcing the state to forfeit its biggest bargaining chip. The resolution was approved 14 to 0, with the United States abstaining. To pass, a U.N. resolution requires approval by 9 out of 15 members of the Security Council, and no vetoes by any of the five permanent members, including the U.S. Since the U.S. didn’t veto the plan, the Obama administration effectively endorsed it. Dershowitz said he had met with Obama at one point, and Obama had assured him that he would always have Israel’s back. “I didn’t realize what [Obama] meant is that he would have their back to stab them,” Dershowitz said. He explained a Middle East peace now will be much harder to achieve because Arab interests will believe they have to make no accommodations, that the international processes such as those at the U.N. will give them a nation on their own terms. The result? Obama will be considered “one of the worst foreign policy presidents ever,” he said. He described Obama as an “appalling, appalling president.” 

Obama's Parting Shot at Israel

As most people know by now, the UN security Council today approved a resolution calling on Israel to cease building settlements.
The administration said they abstained from voting because the language mirrored facts on the ground.
Obama could have vetoed the resolution but didn't because they agreed with much of the resolution.
In effect, this is a propaganda victory for Arabs, and another propaganda tool to use while attacking Israel.
This will be a large part of Obama's legacy. mfbsr


PEACE ON EARTH?
Team Obama Lets U.N. Condemn Israel for Settlements
Republicans and Democrats alike excoriated the Obama administration for allowing the Security Council measure to pass.
Andrew Desiderio
ANDREW DESIDERIO

12.23.16 2:44 PM ET
In a stinging rebuke to Israel, the United States abstained from a United Nations Security Council vote on a resolution that demands a halt to Israeli settlements, allowing the measure to pass despite vigorous bipartisan opposition at home.
In advance of the vote, Democratic and Republican lawmakers called on the Obama administration to block the measure, saying it would harm peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine. The Obama administration, meanwhile, contends that Israel’s settlements have imperiled the peace process, and that a two-state solution cannot exist while settlement activity increases.
Speaking immediately after the vote, Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., singled out Netanyahu and his allies for their continued support of settlements.

“One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict,” Power said. “One has to make a choice between settlements and separation.”
Of the 15 member states, 14 voted in favor of the measure. As one of the five permanent member states on the Security Council, the U.S. has veto power over any resolution. It decided instead to abstain, prompting rousing applause inside the chamber but vehement criticism from Capitol Hill and the incoming administration.
As drafted, the resolution condemns Israel’s settlements as a “flagrant violation of international law” and as having “no legal validity.” Israel has long maintained that its settlements, particularly those in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, are legitimate and legal.
President-elect Donald Trump had intervened in the process earlier in the week, speaking on the phone with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in an appeal to delay the vote that was originally scheduled for Thursday. Trump was successful, but the same resolution was put up for a vote by four separate nations—Malaysia, New Zealand, Venezuela and Senegal. After the vote, Netanyahu asked his ambassadors in New Zealand and Senegal to return to Israel.
Trump also personally offered his support to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose government vehemently opposed the resolution. The president-elect tweeted in response to the vote: “As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th”—the day Trump officially takes office.
That sentiment was echoed by Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., Danny Danon, who said he has “no doubt that the new U.S. administration will usher in a new era.” In a separate statement, Netanyahu called the vote “shameful” and vowed to defy it, accusing the U.S. of sabotaging his government.

In advance of the vote, Rep. Adam Schiff and Sen. Chuck Schumer, both Democrats, were vocal in their opposition to the resolution, and urged the Obama administration to block it. After the vote, critics from both sides of the aisle piled on.
“I am dismayed that the Administration departed from decades of U.S. policy by not vetoing the U.N. resolution regarding Israeli settlements. I continue to believe that a productive path toward peace requires direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” said Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia.
Added House Speaker Paul Ryan: “This is absolutely shameful. Today’s vote is a blow to peace that sets a dangerous precedent for further diplomatic efforts to isolate and demonize Israel.” He pledged that the incoming Trump administration will work to “rebuild our alliance with Israel.”
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said the U.N. as a whole “is increasingly viewed as anti-Semitic and seems to have lost all sense of proportionality.”
Amid the backlash, the White House held a last-minute call with reporters after the vote, during which senior White House officials said the settlements have only contributed to Israel’s “isolation” within the international community, making it harder to achieve a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.
“The continued pace of settlement activity, which has accelerated significantly in recent years … puts at risk the two-state solution,” said Ben Rhodes, a top national security aide to President Obama.
GET THE BEAST IN YOUR INBOX!

Enter your email address
By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
SUBSCRIBE
Rhodes added that the U.N. is a “flawed venue” through which to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it “has frequently been used to single out Israel.” The U.S., Rhodes said, has therefore resisted efforts to hold negotiations on the issue through the international body.
The Obama administration’s opposition to Israel’s settlements has been well-documented. Earlier this month, Secretary of State John Kerry said Israel was “heading to a place of danger” with its construction in disputed territory. The White House said Friday that opposition to Israeli settlements and “incitements of terrorism” are “consistent with longstanding bipartisan policy.” Breaking with her colleagues, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein praised the Obama administration for acting to preserve the U.S.’s support for a two-state solution.
Responding to the vote, GOP Sen. Tom Cotton, a foreign policy hawk, suggested that the U.S. should consider pulling out of the international body.
“Time for complete review of our U.N. policy, not just funding. Open question whether U.S. should remain member & allow U.N. to disgrace our soil,” Cotton wrote on Twitter. White House officials characterized similar suggestions as an overreaction.
The incoming Trump administration has signaled its intention to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and critics suggested the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from the U.N. vote was intended to rebuke Trump. Rhodes shot down that suggestion.
“It is absurd to suggest this action is related some way to police positions that the incoming administration has already said it was going to pursue,” Rhodes said, adding: “There’s one president at a time.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/andrew-desiderio.html

 .

Forces of Decency Punishing Daesh

Daesh Cowards Dressing as Women to Escape Justice

Iraqi special forces battling to clear Islamic State from eastern Mosul have killed nearly 1,000 militants but fighting has slowed as troops face a mobile enemy hidden among thousands of civilians in the city, a top commander said.

Six weeks into a major offensive, Iraqi forces have captured nearly half of eastern Mosul, moving from district to district against jihadist snipers, suicide attackers and car bombs.

Elite Iraqi troops, known as the "Golden Division", are the only brigades to have entered Mosul from the east, with Iraqi army, federal police and Kurdish Peshmerga units surrounding the city to the north and south. Shi'ite militias are trying to complete the encirclement from the west.

The U.S.-trained Counter Terrorism Service unit breached Islamic State's defenses at the end of October, but has been slowed by the militants' mobile tactics and concern over civilian casualties preventing the use of tanks and heavy armor.

Major General Abdul Ghani al-Asadi, one of the commanders of the special forces, said troops had adapted their tactics, surrounding one district at a time to cut off the militants' supplies and protect civilians.

"Progress was faster at the start. The reason is we were operating before in areas without residents," Asadi told Reuters in Bartella, on Mosul's outskirts.

"We have arrived in populated districts. So how do we protect civilians? We have sealed off district after district."

He said around 990 militants had been killed in fighting in the east so far. He would not say how many casualties there were among government special forces.

"We have made changes to plans, partly due to the changing nature of the enemy ... Daesh (Islamic State) is not based in one location, but moving from here to there," he said.

"Tanks don't work here, artillery is not effective. Planes from the coalition force and the air force are restricted because of the civilians."

THOUSANDS DISPLACED

The Iraqi government has asked civilians in Mosul to stay at home during the offensive, as humanitarian organizations say they cannot cope with an influx of hundred of thousands of people displaced from the city.

More than one million people are believed to remain in the city, the largest in northern Iraq.

Defeating Islamic State in Mosul, Islamic State's last major bastion in Iraq, is seen as vital to destroying the "caliphate" declared by the group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, from the pulpit of Mosul's Grand Mosque in July 2014.

But commanders have said the battle could take months. Dozens of districts must be taken in the east before attacking forces reach the Tigris River which splits Mosul into east and west. U.S. air strikes have taken out four of the five river bridges used by the militants.

RELATED COVERAGE

Iraqi special forces screen Mosul men in hunt for suicide bombers
Major General Najm al-Jubbouri, one of the army's top commanders, told Reuters that the western part of the city could be the more dangerous.

To the south, Iraqi army brigades are now advancing slowly on the remaining Islamic State-held villages before reaching the city limits. To the west, the mostly Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias known as Popular Mobilisation have cut off the highway to Syria, but they have yet to close in on the city.

"The force left in front of us is small, unable to stop our advance. Their spirit is broken," Asadi said.

"We have killed more than 992 fighters on our front plus more wounded ... Their supplies and communications to the outside world are cut. They stage fewer suicide bombings."

Iraqi military estimates initially put the number of insurgents in Mosul at 5,000 to 6,000, facing a 100,000-strong coalition force. But Asadi said the figure for the Islamic State presence may have been too high.

Iraqi authorities have not released estimates of civilian casualties but the United Nations says growing numbers of injured, both civilians and military, are overwhelming aid groups.

By Patrick Markey and Ulf Laessing | BARTELLA, IRAQ

Trump Name Removed From Trump NYC Buildings

"Having the Trump Name on the Buildings is  Embarrassing" Says Realtor

Trump real estate holders have banded together to remove the President-elect's name from their buildings.

According to the New York Times, residents at 140, 160, and 180 Riverside Boulevard received an email today from Mary Pawlisa, a senior regional manager for Equity Residential, the group that owns the building. It said: "This week, the Trump Place building names will change to the street addresses — 140, 160 and 180 Riverside Boulevard. The purpose of this change is to assume a neutral building identity that appeals to all current and future residents."

This email appears to be the direct result of an online petition titled "Dump the TRUMP Name," which received hundreds of tenant signatures in October.

Last month, Trump press secretary Hope Hicks told the Times that Trump had not heard of the petition and that it seemed like "an inappropriate thing to do."

"If the name comes off, the building will lose tremendous value," she said.

In reality, the Trump name has been discredited.

 Linda Gottlieb, the resident who started the petition feels like the tenants won. "We used the power of protest to say that we don't have to accept the spread of the man's influence into our very homes," she told the Times. "To me, it feels like a cleansing of the place where I live."

by SAM DANGREMOND and CAROLINE HALLEMANN
 NOV 15, 2016