NETANYAHU PLEASED WITH TRUMP'S DECISION TO DITCH PALESTINIAN STATE DEAL

NETANYAHU PLEASED WITH TRUMP'S DECISION TO DITCH PALESTINIAN STATE DEAL:

ISRAEL & AMERICA ARE FRIENDS ONCE AGAIN.


Sources: ABC News, NY Times, YouTube


******* Trump, Meeting With Netanyahu, Backs Away From Palestinian State


President Trump jettisoned two decades of diplomatic orthodoxy on Wednesday by declaring that the United States would no longer insist on the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians.

Hosting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel for the first time since becoming president, Mr. Trump promised a concerted effort to bring the two sides together, suggesting a regional effort involving an array of Arab nations. But he said that he was flexible about how an agreement would look and that he would not be bound by past assumptions.

“I’m looking at two-state and one-state” formulations, Mr. Trump said during a White House news conference with Mr. Netanyahu. “I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one.”

At the same time, Mr. Trump urged Mr. Netanyahu to temporarily stop new housing construction in the West Bank while he pursues a deal, echoing a position past presidents have taken. “I’d like to see you hold back on settlements for a little bit,” he told Mr. Netanyahu.

Mr. Trump’s position on a two-state solution discarded a policy that has underpinned America’s role in Middle East peacemaking since the Clinton administration and raised a host of thorny questions.

Palestinians are highly unlikely to accept anything short of a sovereign state, and a single Israeli state encompassing the Palestinians would either leave them as second-class citizens or would no longer be majority Jewish, given the growth rate of the Arab population.

Still, long before Mr. Trump’s ascension, momentum for side-by-side states had faded not just in Washington but also in the Middle East, where many Israelis and Palestinians have given up hope or changed their minds about the concept. The leaders of both sides face domestic difficulties and seem unenthusiastic about the compromises that might be required to get to a mutually agreeable resolution.

The trick is that no one has offered a plausible alternative that would satisfy both camps, leaving the conflict in a state of suspended animation. Mr. Netanyahu is under pressure from his right-leaning coalition to abandon the two-state solution and even annex parts of the West Bank. And the Palestinian Authority faces pressure from Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza and is sworn to Israel’s destruction.

Mr. Trump did not address these dynamics, instead emphasizing his confidence that he could produce a breakthrough. “I think we’re going to make a deal,” he said, describing that as personally important to him. “It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand.”

He emphasized that Israel would have to be flexible in any future talks. “As with any successful negotiation, both sides will have to make compromises,” Mr. Trump said.

Turning to Mr. Netanyahu, he asked, “You know that, right?”

Mr. Netanyahu responded with a smile. “Both sides,” he said, emphasizing the first word.

Nonetheless, Mr. Netanyahu, who nominally supports a two-state solution, quickly embraced Mr. Trump’s declaration, saying he preferred to deal with the “substance” of a deal rather than “labels.”

He noted that the concept of a two-state solution meant different things to different people. And he repeated his two prerequisites: that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and that Israel maintain security control over the entire West Bank. He said the obstacle to peace was Palestinian hatred, demonstrated by the building of statues to those who carry out terrorist attacks and the payment of salaries to their families. “This is the source of the conflict,” he said.

Mr. Trump’s dismissal of the two-state solution seemed reminiscent of his remark during the transition that the United States should not be bound by the decades-old “one China” policy that recognizes a single Chinese government in Beijing and withholds diplomatic ties from Taiwan. That statement infuriated the Chinese leadership, and Mr. Trump eventually circled back to endorse the policy.

If Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, several analysts said, he may inevitably find his way back to the two-state solution.

“If you do a systematic analysis of the situation, there is no other option,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former United States ambassador to Israel and Egypt. “There are Israelis who believe they could get away with giving the Palestinians minimal political rights, but they are fooling themselves. Unless the Palestinians do a 180, it is just inconceivable.”

Palestinian leaders lamented Mr. Trump’s stance, seeing it as an abandonment by the United States, which has been the main patron of the Palestinian Authority. But Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Palestinians could draw comfort from Mr. Trump’s eagerness for a new peace push and his warning to Israel on settlements.

Palestinians are highly unlikely to accept anything short of a sovereign state, and a single Israeli state encompassing the Palestinians would either leave them as second-class citizens or would no longer be majority Jewish, given the growth rate of the Arab population.

Still, long before Mr. Trump’s ascension, momentum for side-by-side states had faded not just in Washington but also in the Middle East, where many Israelis and Palestinians have given up hope or changed their minds about the concept. The leaders of both sides face domestic difficulties and seem unenthusiastic about the compromises that might be required to get to a mutually agreeable resolution.

The trick is that no one has offered a plausible alternative that would satisfy both camps, leaving the conflict in a state of suspended animation. Mr. Netanyahu is under pressure from his right-leaning coalition to abandon the two-state solution and even annex parts of the West Bank. And the Palestinian Authority faces pressure from Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza and is sworn to Israel’s destruction.

Mr. Trump did not address these dynamics, instead emphasizing his confidence that he could produce a breakthrough. “I think we’re going to make a deal,” he said, describing that as personally important to him. “It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand.”

He emphasized that Israel would have to be flexible in any future talks. “As with any successful negotiation, both sides will have to make compromises,” Mr. Trump said.

Turning to Mr. Netanyahu, he asked, “You know that, right?”

Mr. Netanyahu responded with a smile. “Both sides,” he said, emphasizing the first word.

Nonetheless, Mr. Netanyahu, who nominally supports a two-state solution, quickly embraced Mr. Trump’s declaration, saying he preferred to deal with the “substance” of a deal rather than “labels.”

He noted that the concept of a two-state solution meant different things to different people. And he repeated his two prerequisites: that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and that Israel maintain security control over the entire West Bank. He said the obstacle to peace was Palestinian hatred, demonstrated by the building of statues to those who carry out terrorist attacks and the payment of salaries to their families. “This is the source of the conflict,” he said.

Mr. Trump’s dismissal of the two-state solution seemed reminiscent of his remark during the transition that the United States should not be bound by the decades-old “one China” policy that recognizes a single Chinese government in Beijing and withholds diplomatic ties from Taiwan. That statement infuriated the Chinese leadership, and Mr. Trump eventually circled back to endorse the policy.

If Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, several analysts said, he may inevitably find his way back to the two-state solution.

“If you do a systematic analysis of the situation, there is no other option,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former United States ambassador to Israel and Egypt. “There are Israelis who believe they could get away with giving the Palestinians minimal political rights, but they are fooling themselves. Unless the Palestinians do a 180, it is just inconceivable.”

Palestinian leaders lamented Mr. Trump’s stance, seeing it as an abandonment by the United States, which has been the main patron of the Palestinian Authority. But Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Palestinians could draw comfort from Mr. Trump’s eagerness for a new peace push and his warning to Israel on settlements.

“They will see an opening in, how do you translate the president’s desire for peace into something concrete?” Mr. Omari said.

Mr. Trump and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and senior adviser, have been exploring an approachcalled the “outside-in” strategy, which involves enlisting Arab nations that have already found common cause with Israel against Iran, their mutual enemy, to help broker a settlement with the Palestinians.

Until now, Mr. Trump’s team has largely avoided conversations with Palestinian leaders. But Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, met with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, in Ramallah in the West Bank on Tuesday, according to news reports.

The idea of an independent Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and Gaza became the central theme of Middle East peacemaking in the 1990s after the Oslo Accords were signed. Bill Clinton was the first president to endorse a two-state solution, saying in a speech in January 2001, just two weeks before leaving office, that the conflict would never be settled without “a sovereign, viable Palestinian state.”

His successor, George W. Bush, picked that up later that year, becoming the first president to make it official American policy. Barack Obama considered a two-state solution the unquestionable bedrock of Washington’s approach. But those presidents never got to the point of an agreement between the two parties, and Mr. Trump picked as his ambassador to Israel a lawyer, David M. Friedman, who opposes the two-state solution.

Mr. Netanyahu looked forward to Mr. Trump’s inauguration as the first time in his four terms as prime minister that he would have a Republican president as a partner. After years of tension with Mr. Obama, who pressed Israel for more concessions for peace, Mr. Netanyahu anticipated vigorous support from the new president.

But Mr. Trump’s focus on the Palestinian conflict and his push for a pause in settlements distracted from the topic Mr. Netanyahu preferred to address, the threat from Iran. At the news conference, Mr. Trump again called Mr. Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran “one of the worst deals I’ve ever seen,” but said nothing about abandoning it or even renegotiating it. Instead, he simply vowed to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power. “I will do more to prevent Iran from ever developing — I mean ever — a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Nor did he repeat his campaign vow to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, saying only, “I’d love to see that happen” and, “We’ll see what happens.”

But he made a show of warmly welcoming Mr. Netanyahu, even inviting the prime minister’s wife, Sara, to stand during the news conference. The Israeli first lady was then treated to a museum tour by Mr. Trump’s wife, Melania.

Still, the president was pressed by an Israeli reporter about a rise in anti-Semitic attacks across the country since his election. The reporter asked what he would say to those “who believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones.”

In a meandering response, Mr. Trump cited his victory in the Electoral College, then promised “to do everything within our power to stop long-simmering racism.” He pointed to Mr. Kushner, who is Jewish, and his daughter Ivanka, who converted when she married Mr. Kushner, to dispel suggestions of anti-Semitism.

“As far as Jewish people, so many friends — a daughter who happens to be here right now, a son-in-law and three beautiful grandchildren,” he said, vowing to promote comity. “You’re going to see a lot of love.”

MATTIS SCORES CONGRESSIONAL WAIVER TO LEAD PENTAGON (AVOIDS PC QUESTIONS)

GEN MATTIS SCORES CONGRESSIONAL WAIVER TO LEAD PENTAGON:

AVOIDS POLITICALLY CORRECT GAMES DURING CONFIRMATION HEARINGS.

MATTIS LOVES THE USA & RESPECTS US MILITARY.

Sources: Times of Israel, C-Span, YouTube

******* Trump’s Pentagon chief: The capital of Israel is Tel Aviv
~ "The capital of Israel that I go to, sir, is Tel Aviv, sir, because that’s where all their government people are."

Diverging from the signals the president-elect has been sending out, James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis opts to ‘stick with US policy’.


President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to head the Pentagon said Thursday that the United States should continue treating Tel Aviv as Israel’s capital, breaking with Republican members of Congress and intimations the incoming president could fulfill his campaign pledge to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

Asked during his confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee if he supported the embassy’s relocation, retired Marine Corps general James “Mad Dog” Mattis said, “Right now I stick with the current US policy.”

Facing an hours-long session of questions from senators, he emphasized: “The capital of Israel that I go to, sir, is Tel Aviv, sir, because that’s where all their government people are.” He also noted, however, the determination was not part of his remit as defense secretary nominee.

“I would defer to the nominee of Secretary of State on that, sir,” he said.

The last three successive presidents have maintained that the future status of Jerusalem should be settled in final negotiations between the parties, as both Israelis and Palestinians claim the city as their rightful capital.

But Trump has indicated since his victory in November he will no longer honor that tradition. In December, he nominated his longtime friend and attorney David Friedman, a vocal supporter and donor to West Bank settlements, to be the next US ambassador to Israel

In a statement announcing the selection, Friedman said he expected to carry out his duties in “Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”

Trump also repeatedly promised during the campaign that he would move the embassy. While past presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also vowed on the trail to do so, neither fulfilled that promise once they assumed the responsibilities of conducting America’s foreign policy.

Mattis’s position further underlines a difference with most Republican on Capitol Hill, who make up the majority in both chambers of Congress.

The Obama administration allowed passage of a United Nations Security Council Resolution last month that condemns settlements as a violation of international law. The text states that all areas Israel captured in the 1967 war — which includes East Jerusalem and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, with the Temple Mount and Western Wall, the holiest sites in Judaism — are “occupied Palestinian territory.”

Earlier this month, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R), Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R) and Nevada Sen. Dean Heller (R) proposed the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act, which urges Trump to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US embassy there.

Mattis declined to comment on the motion Thursday, telling the senators he needed more information on the particulars of its content.

He also diverged from most GOP lawmakers in expressing support for a two-state outcome to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

“If it brings peace to the Middle East,” he said, while also indicating he is willing to hear alternatives despite his skepticism that another resolution to the conflict exists.

“If there’s another solution, I’d be happy to hear what it is,” he said, before later stressing America had a “vital interest” in the two sides reaching a peaceful accommodation to their decades-long dispute.

At a hearing on Wednesday, Trump’s pick for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, also endorsed the two-state solution.

In the past, Mattis has been a critic of the Israeli settlement enterprise, asserting that its continued expansion imperiled Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic state.

“If I’m in Jerusalem and I put 500 Jewish settlers out here to the east and there’s 10,000 Arab settlers in here, if we draw the border to include them, either it ceases to be a Jewish state or you say the Arabs don’t get to vote — apartheid,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in July 2013.

During that same conversation, he also said the United States pays a security price with the rest of the Arab world for its support of Israel.

Mattis, who headed the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) under President Obama from August 2010 to March 2013 (a post that has command authority for all US forces in the Middle East with the exception of Israel), did imply during Thursday’s hearing that his former boss did not always send a comforting message to Israel as an ally.

There was “a sense” in Jerusalem, Mattis said, that the administration has been “indifferent to their security concerns.” Under that assessment, he told committee members, it was “time to build trust” with the Jewish state.

Mattis also addressed the Iran nuclear deal, saying he thought it was an “imperfect” pact, but that the US had an obligation to abide by its terms. “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies,” he said.

During the campaign, Trump sent conflicting messages on the Iran accord, suggesting he would both abrogate the deal and enforce rigorously. Since being elected, his top advisers have indicated he will not withdraw from the deal unilaterally unless Iran violates the agreement.

IRAN RELEASES U.S. PRISONERS & TO RECEIVE BILLIONS FROM OBAMA ADMIN

IRAN RELEASES U.S. PRISONERS & TO RECEIVE BILLIONS FROM OBAMA ADMIN:

ONE-SIDED NUKE DEAL NOW GOES INTO EFFECT.

Sources:  Washington Post, Fox News, PBS, Youtube

A plane carrying Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian and two other Americans released by Iran left Tehran en route to Europe on Sunday after the implementation of a landmark agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.

Once the prisoner flight was well on its way, the Obama administration announced new sanctions related to participation in Iran’s ballistic missile program. The sanctions, which applied to 11 persons and companies, were issued under U.S. restrictions that remain in place despite the lifting Saturday of international sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program.

As the Swiss plane carrying the three Americans was airborne, President Obama hailed the implementation of the nuclear agreement and the prisoner exchange with Iran that led to the release of the imprisoned U.S. citizens. In televised remarks Sunday morning, he said that although “profound differences” remain between Washington and Tehran, the Iranian people now have a chance to end their isolation and pursue closer ties with the rest of the world.

U.S. and European officials lifted the harshest economic sanctions against Tehran after the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog certified that the Islamic republic had fully complied with promises to curtail key parts of its nuclear program. Hours before diplomats in Vienna heralded the official activation of the nuclear deal, Iran confirmed the release of Rezaian and the other American detainees, set free in exchange for U.S. clemency offered to seven Iranians charged or imprisoned for sanctions violations and the dismissal of outstanding charges against 14 Iranians outside the United States.

Rezaian and two other released Americans were flown out of Tehran on Sunday, after a delay. They were expected to go to Switzerland, then to a U.S. military facility in Germany to be examined by medical personnel. One of the Americans, Nosratollah ­Khosravi-Roodsari, did not fly out with the others, U.S. officials said.

We can confirm that our detained U.S. citizens have been released and that those who wished to depart Iran have left,” a senior administration official said. “We have no further information to share at this time and would ask that everyone respect the privacy of these individuals and their families.”

A fifth American was released in a separate gesture by Iran and left Iran individually before the plane carrying the three Americans departed.

The coordinated moves cemented a major diplomatic victory for the Obama administration, which won significant nuclear concessions from Iran in an effort to defuse an international crisis that threatened to spark a new Middle East war. The agreement also frees Iran from crippling economic sanctions and opens the way for ending decades of diplomatic and economic isolation.

“This evening, we are really reminded once again of diplomacy’s power to tackle significant challenges,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said after the implementation was announced. “We have approached this challenge with the firm belief that exhausting diplomacy before choosing war is an imperative. And we believe that today marks the benefits of that choice.”

But the agreement also contains significant political risk for a White House that is staking its legacy on Iran’s willingness to comply with unprecedented curbs and extensive monitoring of its nuclear program. The pact — which has been repeatedly condemned by the Israeli government as well as by members of Congress from both parties — drew fresh attacks Saturday from Republican presidential contenders, some of whom blasted the deal as a sellout to Iran’s clerical rulers.

The nuclear pact calls on Iran to dismantle key nuclear equipment in a deal designed to ensure that Iranian officials could never accumulate enough fissile material to build a nuclear bomb. The agreement also requires unprecedented inspections and monitoring covering all aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, from uranium mining to research facilities.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif echoed Kerry’s remarks, saying on Twitter that “diplomacy requires patience, but we all know that it sure beats the alternatives.” Implementation of the deal, Zarif said, meant that “it’s now time for all — especially Muslim nations — to join hands and rid the world of violent extremism. Iran is ready.”

The release of prisoners had not been officially part of negotiations between Iran and the six world powers: the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. But Kerry frequently raised the plight of imprisoned U.S. citizens during last year’s nuclear talks.

The Obama administration had come under heavy criticism for concluding the nuclear accord without winning the release of American detainees, including Rezaian, 39, whose 544-day detention is the longest ever by a Western journalist in Iran. White House officials confirmed that the swap was clinched during months of secret talks that gained momentum in the days before the nuclear pact was formally implemented.

Friends and colleagues at The Washington Post are elated by the wonderful news that Jason Rezaian has been released from Evin Prison and has safely left the country with his wife, Yeganeh Salehi,” said Frederick J. Ryan Jr., publisher of The Post. “We are enormously grateful to all who played a role in securing his release. Our deep appreciation also goes to the many government leaders, journalists, human rights advocates and others around the world who have spoken out on Jason’s behalf and against the harsh confinement that was so wrongly imposed upon him,” he said.

“Now a free man, Jason will be reunited with his family, including his brother Ali, his most effective and tireless advocate. We look forward to the joyous occasion of welcoming him back to the Washington Post newsroom,” Ryan said.

Iran’s judiciary announced the release in Tehran as part of an exchange. The United States is releasing seven people charged with violating sanctions against Iran, U.S. and Iranian officials said.

A senior U.S. official said the “Iranians wanted a goodwill gesture” in response to the release of the Americans. A list of Iranians submitted to U.S. authorities was “whittled down” to exclude any crimes related to violence or terrorism, said the official, one of several who spoke on the condition of anonymity under administration ground rules.

Another official said the exchange was a “one-time arrangement because it was an opportunity to bring Americans home” and should not be considered something that would “encourage this behavior in the future” by Iran.

The officials did not tie the release directly to the nuclear talks and said they had not wanted the detained Americans to be “used as leverage” in the negotiations. But, they said, completion of the nuclear deal last July greatly accelerated talks about the prisoners.

In addition to Rezaian, the Americans freed Saturday included Saeed Abedini, 35, of Boise, Idaho; Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, 32, of Flint, Mich.; and Khosravi-Roodsari, U.S. and Iranian officials said.

A fifth American, identified as language student Matt Trevithick, was also released Saturday but was not part of the exchange deal. Trevithick’s parents said in a statement that he had been held for 40 days in Evin Prison. A senior U.S. official said Trevithick, 30, has already left Iran.

Abedini is a Christian pastor who had been imprisoned since July 2012 for organizing home churches. Hekmati is a former Marine who spent more than four years in prison on spying charges following his arrest in August 2011 during a visit to see his grandmother.

The detention of Khosravi-Roodsari had not been previously publicized. Iranian state television identified him as a businessman. Little else was known about him.

A senior administration official said of Trevithick, “We wanted him, obviously, to be a direct part of this, and made clear to Iranians that [his release] would be an appropriate humanitarian gesture.”

The exchange quickly became political fodder in the United States among Republicans vying for the GOP presidential nomination.

Republican front-runner Donald Trump said it was “a total disgrace” that the release of the Americans took so long. “This should have been done three, four years ago, when the [nuclear] deal was struck. Before the deal was made­ . . . they should have said, ‘We want our prisoners back,’ ” Trump said at a rally in New Hampshire.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said in a television interview Saturday: “We’d be very happy for the families of the Americans who are going to be home and for those Americans, but I’d also want to hear what the other side of the deal is, if this president is releasing more terrorists from Guantanamo to go back and reenter the war on terror. . . . We shouldn’t have to swap prisoners. These folks were taken illegally in violation of international law, and they should have been released without condition.”

Rezaian’s ordeal damaged his health, drew protests from media and human rights groups, and hampered efforts to improve relations between Washington and Tehran. It also exposed fault lines and infighting in Iran’s opaque political system, where Rezaian and other detained Americans appeared to become pawns in a larger internal struggle between hard-liners and reformists seeking to improve ties with the West.

Rezaian was tried last year behind closed doors on vague charges of espionage and other alleged offenses and was sentenced to an unspecified prison term.

His 2014 arrest and subsequent trial and conviction in Iran’s secretive Revolutionary Court system — on charges that were never publicly disclosed or substantiated — appeared to reflect a power play by hard-liners fiercely loyal to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, against more moderate reformist elements under President Hassan Rouhani. The hard-liners control Iran’s security forces, intelligence apparatus, judiciary and most other levers of power, while Rouhani — though answerable to Khamenei — has been given relatively free rein to manage Iran’s foreign affairs and improve its economy.

In recent weeks, Iran took significant steps to meet its obligations under the deal.

Increased U.S.-Iranian cooperation appeared to be on display Wednesday when Iran released 10 U.S. sailors within a day after they were seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps naval forces in the Persian Gulf. The Americans were on two small riverine boats that strayed into Iranian waters.

Against this backdrop, the signs of rapprochement raised hopes for a resolution in Rezaian’s case.

Rezaian was arrested along with his wife when security forces raided their home July 22, 2014. Yeganeh Salehi, 31, a journalist who worked for the Abu Dhabi newspaper the National, was released on bail in October, but Rezaian languished in Evin Prison for months without trial or even specific charges.

Rezaian holds both U.S. and Iranian citizenship. But Iran, which does not recognize dual nationality, barred any U.S. role in the case, including consular visits by Swiss diplomats representing U.S. interests. Diplomatic relations between Washington and Tehran were severed in 1980 during the Iranian hostage crisis.

The last of four Revolutionary Court sessions was held in August, but it was not until October that a court spokesman announced a conviction — without providing any details. In November, the court said Rezaian was sentenced to a prison term, again with no elaboration.

In the meantime, Iranian officials floated the idea of a prisoner swap with the United States. Rouhani even suggested that Tehran could free Rezaian and at least two other Iranian American prisoners if Washington reciprocated by releasing 19 Iranian citizens convicted in the United States of circumventing sanctions.

As if to buttress that proposal, state-run news media in Iran then reported that Rezaian was accused of “spying on Iran’s nuclear programs” and giving the U.S. government information on people and companies evading sanctions.

JESUS CHRIST'S RACE NO LONGER MATTERS TO ME

JESUS CHRIST'S RACE NO LONGER MATTERS TO ME:

I HOPE HIS COLOR & RACE DOESN'T MATTER TO YOU EITHER.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

"For unto us a Child is Born, unto us a Son is given." Isaiah 9:6

On today December 25th we celebrate the Birth of JESUS CHRIST.

Even though JESUS was actually born in the month of SEPTEMBER, due to the Judeo-Christian calendar we celebrate his Birthday on December 25.

We all know JESUS was a real Human Being, born in the Middle East to JEWISH parents.

As a curious Christian, I used to be caught up in Foolish arguments about JESUS' race, his Skin color, Eye color and Hair texture.

But no more!

I no longer care what Color JESUS was because such arguments keep Human Beings divided and at odds about Race Relations.

I now only care about the Truth of JESUS' Birth, his Ministry on Earth, his Crucifixion, his Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven where he now sits beside his Heavenly Father GOD Almighty.

Hallejuah!

~ Insisting Jesus Was White Is Bad History and Bad Theology

In trying to police his depiction, Megyn Kelly is wrong on both the facts and the essential universality of the Christian message.

Fox News television host Megyn Kelly told viewers on her December 11 broadcast that Jesus and Santa are both white men.

"Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean it has to change," Kelly said. "Jesus was a white man, too. It's like we have, he's a historical figure that's a verifiable fact, as is Santa, I just want kids to know that. How do you revise it in the middle of the legacy in the story and change Santa from white to black?"

Setting aside the ridiculousness of creating rigidly racial depictions of a fictitious character that does not actually exist—sorry, kids—like Santa, Kelly has made a more serious error about Jesus.

The scholarly consensus is actually that Jesus was, like most first-century Jews, probably a dark-skinned man. If he were taking the red-eye flight from San Francisco to New York today, Jesus might be profiled for additional security screening by TSA.

The myth of a white Jesus is one with deep roots throughout Christian history. As early as the Middle Ages and particularly during the Renaissance, popular Western artists depicted Jesus as a white man, often with blue eyes and blondish hair.

Perhaps fueled by some Biblical verses correlating lightness with purity and righteousness and darkness with sin and evil, these images sought to craft a sterile Son of God.

The only problem was that the representations were historically inaccurate.

Modern Western Christians have carried these images over into their own depictions of Jesus. Pick up a one of those bright blue “Bible Story” books in a Sunday School classroom and you’ll find white Jesus waiting for you, rosy cheeks and all. Or you could survey the light-skinned Jesus in any number of modern TV or film portrayals, including History Channel’s hit series The Bible.

Interestingly, the Bible is far less descriptive on the matter of Jesus’ skin color than we are. Christian scriptures say very little about Jesus’ physical appearance. They do not comment on his nose, eye color, skin pigmentation, or hair.

The glaring exception is Isaiah 53:2, which prophesies that the messiah won’t be much to look at, another fact that places the Bible at odds with the “well-groomed surfer-dude Jesus” who's often put forth.

If the Bible is silent on the matter of Jesus’ skin color, does it really matter that Megyn Kelly says Jesus is white?

Yes, actually.

As some historians and theologians have posited, the silence of the Scriptures on the issue of Jesus’ skin color is critical to Christianity’s broad appeal with people of various ethnicities. In a world where race often divides communities and even churches, the Biblical depictions of God’s son positions him as one who can bridge those divides.

For this reason, one American Presbyterian minister in the 1880s warned his flock not to trust popular images of Christ:

If He were particularised and localised—if, for example, He were made a man with a pale face—then the man of the ebony face would feel that there was a greater distance between Christ and him than between Christ and his white brother.’ Instead, because the Bible refused to describe Jesus in terms of racial features, his gospel could appeal to all.

Only in this way could the Church be a place where the ‘Caucasian and Mongolian and African sit together at the Lord’s table, and we all think alike of Jesus, and we all feel that He is alike our brother’.

In Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Advice for Living” column for Ebony in 1957, the civil-rights leader was asked, “Why did God make Jesus white, when the majority of peoples in the world are non-white?” King replied, “The color of Jesus’ skin is of little or no consequence” because what made Jesus exceptional “His willingness to surrender His will to God’s will.”

His point, as historian Edward Blum has noted, is that Jesus transcends race.

Those warnings hold just as true for believers today. Within the church, eschewing a Jesus who looks more like a Scandinavian supermodel than the sinless Son of God in the scriptures is critical to maintaining a faith in which all can give praise to one who became like them in an effort to save them from sins like racism and prejudice.

It's important for Christians who want to expand the church, too, in allowing the creation of communities that are able to worship a Jesus who builds bridges rather than barriers.

And it is essential to enabling those who bear the name of Christ to look forward to that day when, according to the book of Revelation, those “from every nation, tribe, people, and language” can worship God together.

Until that day arrives, though, can someone please tell Megyn Kelly that Jesus is not white?

Sources: The Atlantic, Fox News, YouTube

FATHER OF SYED RIZWAN FAROOK SAYS HIS SON SUPPORTED ISIL, FIXATED ON ISRAEL

#SyedRizwanFarook

FATHER OF SYED RIZWAN FAROOK SAYS HIS SON SUPPORTED ISIL & WAS FIXATED ON ISRAEL:

YET PRES OBAMA STILL WON'T ADMIT TO RADICAL ISLAMISTS LINK.

~ San Bernardino shooter supported ISIS, was 'fixated' on Israel, father says.

• 
  

~ The father of Syed Rizwan Farook shares more details about him.

• ~ He says his son supported ISIS ideology.

Southern California gunman Syed Rizwan Farook was "fixated" on Israel -- and supported ISIS' ideology of establishing an Islamic caliphate, his father says.

Farook's father talked to an Italian newspaper about his son, one of two shooters in last week's deadly attack in San Bernardino.

Along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, Farook sprayed bullets on his co-workers at a holiday party for the environmental health department. The couple was gunned down hours later in a shootout with authorities.

Before the shooting, Farook had expressed some troubling beliefs, his father told La Stampa newspaper.

"He said he shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic State, and he was fixated on Israel," the elder Farook said, referring to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The father, also named Syed Farook, recalled a time he saw his son with a gun.

"I became angry. In 45 years in the United States, I yelled: 'I have never had a weapon.' He shrugged his shoulders and replied: 'Your loss,' " the father said.

"I cannot forgive myself. Maybe if I had been at home, I would have found out and stopped him," he told the newspaper.

President speaks

As more reports emerge on the shooters' fascination with ISIS, President Barack Obama spoke to the nation Sunday night in a bid to temper growing anxiety. 

He described the attack as "an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people."

"The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here's what we know: The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their co-workers and his wife," he said. 

"So far we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home."

The gravity of the occasion was underscored by Obama's decision to use the symbolic power of the Oval Office for only the third time in his presidency, following addresses on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the end of the Iraq war in 2010.

The investigation

A day before the father made news, ISIS hailed the couple as "supporters" of the terror group. The FBI has said it was treating the attack as an act of terrorism. 

The couple's motivation for the attack is a key focus for investigators.

Malik had posted to Facebook a pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader al-Baghdadi, three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation said.

But ISIS' acknowledgment of the couple as supporters doesn't mean they were members or that someone from the group ordered it, said Rick Francona, a CNN military analyst and a former intelligence officer.

ISIS, when claiming responsibility for other terrorist attacks, would call attackers "knights" or "soldiers" rather than supporters. It has, however, urged sympathizers to carry out attacks on their own.

"What they're calling these two are supporters, which is kind of a lesser level," indicating it might not have had direct contact with the couple, Francona said.

Link to terror groups? 

Farook looked into contacting terrorist groups overseas, such as al Qaeda affiliate al Nusra and Al-Shabaab, a senior law enforcement official said.

The source did not specify when or how those attempts were made. A working theory among investigators is that Malik was radicalized before meeting her husband. 

The source said it's too early to put a label on the attack, but at the very least, it appears the couple was inspired by ISIS and possibly other terrorist groups.

Officials caution there is still a lot to learn and there is a plethora of electronic media to review. Part of what is slowing the process down is that the couple's attempts to destroy their electronics made it challenging for investigators to exploit the material.

"They covered their tracks pretty well," the official said.

Post Sources:  CNN, YouTube

Benjamin Netanyahu & John Boehner vs Pres OBAMA: Disrespecting An Elected United States President

‪#‎Netanyahu‬

BENJAMIN NETANYAH vs PRES OBAMA: *BOEHNER'S INVITE*

ISRAELI PM NETANYAHU WAS WRONG TO ACCEPT JOHN BOEHNER'S POLITICAL INVITE TO ADDRESS CONGRESS.


ISRAELI PM Benjamin Netanyahu was Wrong to accept U.S. House Speaker Johh Boehner's recent Political invite to address Congress regarding imposing more Sanctions on IRAN.

GOP leaders would Never have done this Politically Spiteful thing to ROMNEY or BUSH or MCCAIN if they were in the White House.

I too Support ISRAEL but Netanyahu was Wrong!

Just think of the Media Optics if Pres OBAMA were to address ISRAELI leaders without Netanyahu's Blessing?

So does Pres OBAMA hate JEWS?

No of course Not!

But Pres OBAMA already has an Active NUKE Deal with IRAN in place.

What does PM Netanyahu hope to accomplish by addressing Congress next Month?

Does Benjamin Netanyahu want Pres OBAMA to Breach this Active NUKE Deal with IRAN for the sake of Politics?
(2016 U.S. Presidential Election)

By the way.........

What about Professional Courtesy for LEADERSHIP and RESPECT for a sitting Elected U.S. President?


~ ARTICLE: "Netanyahu Considering Changes To Congress Speech After Criticism"

Israeli officials are considering amending the format of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned address to the U.S. Congress next month to try to calm some of the partisan furore the Iran-focused speech has provoked.

Netanyahu is due to address a joint session of Congress about Iran's nuclear programme on March 3, just two weeks before Israeli elections, following an invitation from John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the house.

Boehner's invitation has caused consternation in both Israel and the United States, largely because it is seen as Netanyahu, a hawk on Iran, working with the Republicans to thumb their noses at President Barack Obama's policy on Iran.

It is also seen as putting Netanyahu's political links to the Republicans ahead of Israel's nation-to-nation ties with the United States, its strongest and most important ally, while serving as a pre-election campaign booster.

As a result, Israeli officials are considering whether Netanyahu should speak to a closed-door session of Congress, rather than in a prime-time TV address, so as to drain some of the intensity from the event, a source said.

Another option is for the prime minister to make his speech at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington the same week, rather than in Congress.

"The issue has been under discussion for a week," said a source close to the prime minister's office. "(Netanyahu) is discussing it with Likud people. Some say he should give up on the speech, others that he should go through with it."

But Netanyahu told voters from the Russian speaking community on Monday evening that he was determined to discuss Israel's objections in Washington to an emerging deal with Iran but he did not say if that meant a public speech in Congress.

"I am ... determined to go to Washington to present Israel's position to the members of Congress and the American people," Netanyahu said, repeating that nuclear weapons in Iran's hands would constitute an existential threat to Israel.

An opinion poll by Israel's Army Radio on Monday said 47 percent of people think Netanyahu should cancel the address, while 34 percent say he should go ahead with it.

Since the issue arose, there are signs it is having an impact on his poll ratings ahead of the March 17 election.

Obama said his decision not to meet with Netanyahu followed basic protocol of not meeting with world leaders before an election.

"Some of this just has to do with how we do business, and I think it's important for us to maintain these protocols because the U.S.-Israeli relationship is not about a particular party," Obama said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Washington.

A poll by the Times of Israel on Monday said Netanyahu's Likud would win 23 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, four fewer than the centre-left opposition. Earlier polls showed Likud and the opposition alliance neck-and-neck on 24 seats.

Speaking on radio last week, Israel's deputy foreign minister suggested Netanyahu had been "misled" about the speech, believing it to be bipartisan when the Democrats were not entirely on board.

While that may have created some room for Netanyahu to get out of it if the pressure at home and from Washington becomes too great, it may be too late.

If he withdraws now it may make him look weak with core voters.

Furthermore, he needs an opportunity to play up his tough-on-Iran credentials before election, with national security an overriding issue for voters.


Sources: BBC; Reuters; USA Today; Charlottesville Police Dept; Youtube

ISIS BEHEADS PETER KASSIG, OBAMA HELPED TO LAUNCH ISIS TO OUST ASSAD

#ISIS BEHEADS PETER KASSIG....... ANOTHER U.S. CITIZEN:

PETER KASSIG WAS BEHEADED TO FRIGHTEN THE GOP.

OBAMA ADMIN HELPED TO CREATE ISIS TO OUST ASSAD.

CHRISTIANS MUST CONTINUE TO PRAY.

DON'T RUN FROM THE DEVIL, MAKE THE DEVIL RUN FROM YOU.

During Pres OBAMA'S first term (2010) his Admin secretly helped to launch #ISIS,
a Radical ISLAMIST Terrorist group as a way to oust Pres ASSAD from SYRIA because ASSAD'S regime poses NO Threat to ISRAEL, nor CHRISTIANS in the MIDDLE EAST.

ASSAD'S Leadership also poses NO Threat to U.S. Military Troops.

Starting MIDDLE EAST Chaos (ARAB Spring) and using CNN to oust Leaders in the MIDDLE EAST who pose NO Threat to ISRAEL......CHRISTIANS......
nor U.S. Military Troops,
is the exact SAME tactic OBAMA used to oust MUMMAR GADDAFI (Libya) and HOSNI MUBARK (Egypt).

From 2010 to 2014, #ISIS has also been responsible for Numerous Plane Crashes because Radical ISLAMIST Immigrants are now walking around on U.S. Soil and some of them are Employed and Working at American Airports.

Nevertheless OBAMA'S plan to oust ASSAD Failed.

Why??

Because ASSAD is too Smart for OBAMA and ASSAD is a Real ARAB, while OBAMA is an ARAB wanna-be.

Thus ASSAD understands MIDDLE EAST Politics much better than OBAMA does.

**(Pres OBAMA does NOT personally Identify with BLACK People.
He personally identifies with ARABS and other MIDDLE EASTERN People.)
OBAMA only identifies with BLACK People to Win Elections.)

ISIS was also launched by the OBAMA Admin to take back IRAQ from the U.S. Military so that Radical ISLAM would become Law in IRAQ.

As we speak, it appears as if ISIS has been somewhat Successful in regaining Control of IRAQ.

The key word here is "APPEARS" because ISIS is NOT the Well-Organized Terrorist group that CNN has falsely reported.

Due to its strong Radical ISLAM Ideology, #ISIS has Serious Leadership problems and does NOT know how to Strategize, nor NEGOTIATE Effectively.

Does this sound Familiar??

(**FYI:
CNN is the OBAMA'S Admin Media arm to report on #ISIS and Incite RACE RIOTS in Ferguson, Missouri for higher Ratings.)

After OBAMA discovered #ISIS could NOT oust ASSAD from his place of LEADERSHIP,
then ISIS began to use the common MIDDLE EASTERN practice of BEHEADING to Spread TERROR all over the World.

The latest victim Beheaded by ISIS is a U.S. Human Rights Aid Worker named PETER KASSIG.

For those of you who do NOT understand the Origin of Radical ISLAM, allow me to inform you that Radical ISLAM is NOT a RELIGION, nor a FAITH.

Instead Radical ISLAM is a Political Agenda which uses TERRORISM to Enforce its Tenets, and to STEAL MONEY.

Notice how PETER KASSIG was Beheaded AFTER the 2014 U.S. Mid-Term ELECTIONS.

Who won the 2014 U.S. Mid-Term ELECTIONS?

The GOP!

So why was PETER KASSIG Beheaded After the 2014 U.S. Mid-Term ELECTIONS?

To Frighten and WARN the GOP to leave OBAMA Alone!

#ISIS is NOT working against OBAMA.

#ISIS is working with OBAMA'S Permission.

I Strongly Suggest CHRISTIANS all over Planet EARTH continue to PRAY Daily and Fiercely to the Lord GOD in the name of JESUS CHRIST, for Divine Protection of the UNITED STATES and all U.S. Military Troops!

DON'T RUN FROM THE DEVIL, MAKE THE DEVIL RUN FROM YOU

ARIEL SHARON'S 60-Minutes Interview: Feb 26, 1928 - Jan 11, 2014 (R.I.P.)

#SHARON

ARIEL SHARON; Born: Ariel Scheinermann, February 26, 1928, in Kfar Malal just outside of TEL AVIV.

Died: January 11, 2012, at a Hospital near TEL AVIV.

Former ISRAELI Prime Minister ARIEL SHARON is dead at the age of 85.

SHARON a Tel Aviv native, survived the last 8 years of his life in a Coma.

Prime Minister SHARON was a WAR Hero, who supported expanding ISRAEL'S borders and helping JEWISH Settlers.

His death was met with both Tears & Cheers from around the world.

In 2002 ARIEL SHARON was interviewed by 60-Minutes Journalist LESLIE STAHL.

During this interview SHARON stated that he felt NO HATRED toward anyone, including former Palestinian leader YASSER ARAFAT, but loved ISRAEL with all his heart.

SHARON also expressed deep regret for NOT having Killed YASSER ARAFAT when he had the chance to do so.

Last Saturday Pres OBAMA along with other World Leaders, publicly offered his Condolences to SHARON'S Family & to the people of ISRAEL.

R.I.P.






ARTICLE: "Ariel Sharon, Former Prime Minister Of Israel, Dies At 85"


Ariel Sharon's life was one of dramatic highs and lows. As a soldier, he was both a war hero and a national disgrace. As a politician, he was a brazen leader who fought for Israel’s security, but became despised for withdrawing unilaterally from the Gaza Strip and offering Palestinians a state of their own.

His son, Gilad Sharon, announced his death Saturday, saying "he went when he decided to go."

Vice President Joe Biden said in a statement that he will lead the U.S. delegation to Israel for Sharon's funeral, which was scheduled for Monday near his ranch in the Negev Desert.

In a statement released by the White House, President Obama called Sharon "a leader who dedicated his life to the state of Israel."

"We reaffirm our unshakable commitment to Israel's security and our appreciation for the enduring friendship between our two countries and our two peoples," Mr. Obama said. "We continue to strive for lasting peace and security for the people of Israel, including through our commitment to the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security."

The man Israel knew as "Arik" began serving as the nation's prime minister in March 2001. A highly controversial figure as both a longtime political and military leader, Sharon was also known as "the bulldozer" for his aggressive style.

Short and burly -- he was 5-foot-7 and weighed well over 250 pounds before his debilitating stroke in 2006 -- Sharon seemed larger than life. Proud and defiant, he liked to remind Israelis that he fought in every one of the country's five wars since its founding more than half a century ago.

Born in 1928 to Russian immigrants, Sharon first fought in the Jewish militia whose founding preceded statehood in 1948. Sharon then rose swiftly through the ranks of the Israeli army, making his name on the battlefield as he went. His bold advance across the Suez Canal helped turn the tide of the 1973 Mideast war.

But Sharon also masterminded Israel's disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The unapproved military strike stopped Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization from using Lebanon to launch attacks against Israel, but it also resulted in the massacre of hundreds of innocent Palestinians.

An Israeli commission found Sharon indirectly responsible and in early 1983, he was removed from his post as defense minister. His political future seemed doomed, but he would gradually resurrect his career, serving in parliament and holding a variety of cabinet posts.

Sharon defied international protests, leading a push to build dozens of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. But after his party's election defeat in 1999, Sharon devoted more of his time to his sheep farm in southern Israel.

Failed peace talks and a Palestinian uprising, however, would draw him back onto the political stage. In 2001, Sharon was elected prime minister in a stunning landslide.

It was in his second term that Sharon stunned observers across the world -- including his domestic allies -- by offering Palestinians statehood and classifying Israel's rule over them an "occupation."

Prior to withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and giving 1.3 million Palestinians a degree of autonomy after decades of Israeli rule, Sharon had always maintained a contrarily hard line.

As a member of parliament, he had never voted in favor of any of Israel's peace agreements with neighboring Arab states. He consistently refused to shake the hand of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, who he called a murderer and a liar.

Sharon was a founding member and former head of the conservative Likud party. But in 2005, he broke away from the party and founded a new centrist party, Kadima ("Forward").

On Saturday, former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted Sharon's politics in a statement offering their condolences.

"Ariel Sharon gave his life to Israel - to bring it into being, to sustain and preserve it, and at the end of his long service, to create a new political party committed to both a just peace and lasting security," the Clintons said. "It was an honor to work with him, argue with him, and watch him always trying to find the right path for his beloved country."

In January 2006, Sharon's career was cut short when he suffered a massive stroke.

Ehud Olmert, the deputy prime minister and fellow Kadima party member, was confirmed as acting prime minister. Before suffering the incapacitating stroke, Sharon enjoyed enormous popularity and a wide lead in the polls. His Kadima party went on to win the largest number of seats in the March 2006 elections.

Supporters viewed Sharon as a leader who worked toward peace without compromising Israel's security. Many Israelis also consider him a war hero who helped defend the country during some of its greatest struggles.

Sharon's critics in Israel, however, say he undermined the peace process and surrendered too much security in exchange for peace with the Gaza pullout.

The divergent views on Sharon extended to the White House. Ronald Reagan, writing in his autobiography "An American Life," called then-defense minister Sharon "a bellicose man who seemed to be chomping at the bit to start a war."

In 2003, however, President George W. Bush referred to him as "a man of peace."

On Saturday, a spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a statement saying that Ban was "saddened" by Sharon's death.

"The Secretary-General calls on Israel to build on the late Prime Minister's legacy of pragmatism to work towards the long overdue achievement of an independent and viable Palestinian state, next to a secure Israel," the statement read. "At this time of national mourning, the Secretary-General renews the commitment of the United Nations to work alongside the Government and the people of Israel for peace and security."



Sources: 60-Minutes, AP, CBS News, Los Angeles Times, Reuters, Youtube