On Sunday, Guatemala’s President announced plans to move its embassy to Jerusalem.

Guatemala follows US in planning Israel embassy move

Guatemala, along with 12 other countries, had their embassies in Jerusalem until 1980, when they moved them to Tel Aviv after Israel annexed East Jerusalem, in a move not recognised internationally. All other countries still have their embassies in Tel Aviv.

Guatemala and Israel have a long history of political, economic and military ties.

Guatemala is the first country after the U.S. to announce this decision.

The facile answer to “Why Guatemala?” is, of course,

The Central American country is also a major recipient of US aid – something which Donald Trump threatened to cut to states that voted in favour of the UN resolution.

But Raphael Ahren looked into historical reasons:

Guatemala played a key role in the Jewish state’s creation and has enjoyed Israeli security assistance ever since. It doesn’t hurt that its leader is deeply religious.
. . .
There are several reasons for Guatemala’s dramatic step. The country’s well-established historic friendship with Israel and ongoing deep security and trade ties are one key part of the story. The personal character of the country’s current leader is the other.


Seventy years ago, Guatemala’s ambassador to the UN, Dr. Jorge Garcia Granados, a member of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, played a crucial role in convincing Latin American countries to vote in favor of General Assembly Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Mandatory Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state.
. . .
Guatemala was one of the first countries to recognize the nascent State of Israel in 1948, and the friendship has remained strong ever since.

Ahren lists intelligence teams, security and communications specialists and military training, along with civilian technology – including agriculture – and tourism among the ties between the two countries.

The BBC reports that Israel is in talks with more than 10 countries — including some in Europe — about potentially moving their respective embassies to Jerusalem, according to officials.

Guatemala’s announcement beat them to it.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes on U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog

By John Ruberry

Barack Obama’s Model United Nations style foreign policy of be-nice-to-rogue-nations-and-they’ll-be-nice-to-you is a failure.

Five years ago Syria’s thug president, Bashar al-Assad, crossed Barack Obama’s red line by using chemical weapons against his own people.

Obama did not retaliate.

Last Tuesday the brute crossed that red line–and on Thursday President Donald J. Trump fired 59 cruise missiles at the Syrian base from where those chemical weapons were launched. This happened the day after an emergency session of the UN Security Council called in response to this cruel attack predictably achieved nothing.

The spoiled fat boy who savagely rules the starving nation of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, keeps firing missiles in tests, those weapons violate numerous United Nations resolutions. For years the rogue state has been building a nuclear weapons program, one that can possibly be used to attack the United States.

Trump is responding to the aggressiveness of the Norks by dispatching an aircraft carrier to Korean waters. He’s reportedly considering deploying nuclear missiles in South Korea.

Obama did nothing of consequence in regards to the North Korean threat.

Trump understands the lessons of the playground that Obama and his fellow leftists never learned. Bullies only back down when confronted with force, or a credible threat of force. For bullies weakness is an opportunity to be exploited. The historical examples of strongmen attacking their own people and more powerful nations plundering weaker ones are so plentiful that I won’t insult the intelligence of my readers by listing them. And if you need examples, then you are too far gone, my friend.

There is some good news–America’s eight-year long vacation from reality is over.

Oh, is there any hope for the UN? No. Add me to the list of people who believe that the United States and other freedom-loving nations, such as Great Britain, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, and lets say Chile, need to band together and form a League of Democracies.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

The first in a series of regular posts on stories that should surprise nobody who is actually paying attention.

This entry concerning a source of Frustration for Elder of Ziyon:

A UN agency with a billion dollar budget is covering up information about its teaching hate to hundreds of thousands of students, and I cannot get a single mainstream reporter to cover this.

It’s worth noting that the Jihad promoting UN web sites all were “disappeared” shortly after he highlighted them.


Do you have a suggestion for the #unexpectedly chronicles?  email me or tweet me your link at @datechguyblog

Lance: Well, I couldn’t risk you running off. I had to say yes. And then I was stuck with a woman who thinks the height of excitement is a new flavour Pringle. Oh, I had to sit there and listen to all that yap yap yap. Oh, Brad and Angelina. Is Posh pregnant? X Factor, Atkins Diet, Feng Shui, split ends, text me, text me, text me. Dear God, the never ending fountain of fat, stupid trivia. I deserve a medal.

Doctor Who: The Runaway Bride 2006

There are plenty of reasons why the UN continues to beat the drum loudly on Global Warming,

The United Nations secretary-general on Sunday urged world policymakers to do more to address the threat of climate change as negotiators attempt to forge a new global warming pact next year.
Speaking to hundreds of international delegates at the start of a climate gathering in Abu Dhabi, Ban Ki-moon warned that time is running out to reduce harmful emissions and that political leaders need to offer bold commitments to drive meaningful change.

“If we do not take urgent action, all our plans for increased global prosperity and security will be undone,” he warned.

The prosperity he was talking about of course was that of the bureaucrats and NGO who draw wealth from this nonsense, not to mention the conferences in comfortable parts of the words with good wine, good food, ample female & male company for sale or rent on the taxpayer’s dime.

Likewise the ability to  grease friends is a big reason Obama & the American left were doing the same back in may:

White House adviser John Podesta told reporters Monday afternoon that Congress could not derail the Obama administration’s efforts to unilaterally enact policies to fight global warming.

Podesta said that the president was committed to using executive orders to pass regulations under the Clean Air Act to limit carbon dioxide emissions that they say cause global warming

and this week when President Obama says something like this:

In a speech to the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental activist organization, Obama mocked the GOP for playing dumb on global warming in order to evade the criticism of tea party groups and other elements on their right wing.

Republicans have ‘ducked the question and said, “Hey, I’m not a scientist”,’ Obama claimed, ‘which really translates into “I accept that man-made climate change is real, but if I say so I will be run out of town by a bunch of fringe elements, so I am just going to pretend like – I don’t know – I can’t read”.’

That basic motivation is pretty much the same nationally & globally from the time this nonsense began but both the UN & Obama share an even bigger motivation to continue to push and invent this crisis:


Right now the world & Obama are facing several international Crises: The War in Syria, Nukes in Iran and Russia’s expansion into first Crimea & the Ukraine, ISIS in Iraq.

For the UN this is bad news because in theory solving international problems like these are the reason why the UN is supposed to exist, but we have reached a point where the UN actually exists so that there is a steady stream of income for a group of international leeches who are willing to sell the legitimacy they hold legacy to the highest bidder.

To take sides in any of these issues is to dissuade potential bidders and that’s bad for the graft business and taking sides with the losers would be more so.

For the President however there is a larger issue, it’s the same reason why the name of the Redskins is a headline.  It’s the prevent defense.

He needs to give his allies in the congress & media something to talk about other than the actual issues of the day.

They can’t talk about the international issues I raised above, every single one of them point to failure of leadership and Barack Obama is leader of the free world.

They can’t talk about the IRS scandal or any of the other scandals, they expose the administration for what they are, they certainly can’t talk about Obamacare which has the potential to create the 2nd big red wave in four years and with the economy contracting they can’t even spin the figures.

So instead another topic must be found something that will give the collected media something anything to fill space that doesn’t suggest failure which is the one constant of the presidency of Barack Obama

It’s the left’s version of the prevent defense for the low information voter they have 30 months to kill, the World Cup won’t last forever and Malaysia is unlikely to lose another airliner in the same circumstances to fill a month of CNN’s time.

His greatest ally is the culture, we’ve become so superficial that their plan just might work.

Do you remember Oral Roberts years ago saying he would be “called home”? I thought of that when I saw this story:

Humans are living outside their means, depleting natural resources like forests, air and water 50% faster than the planet can renew, according to the 2012 World Wildlife Fund’s “Living Planet Report” released this month.

If the trends aren’t reversed, by 2030 we’d need more than two Planet Earths to sustain human activity, according to the study.

National review snarks:

Mr. Loucks is certainly correct about one thing: at some point the earth’s going to poop out, but we just don’t know when. Since that’s a pretty scary thing to think about, why not pick a date out of your hat — oh, say, 2030? After all, fund-raising is ever so much more effective when the end is near.

Before you rush off and to buy indulgences from the WWF consider: the WWF comes out with a study saying we all need to live like Indonesians. In fact the story reports that next month’s United Nations conference on sustainable development will be working on reversing the trends in the study. So how are these environmentally conscience folk going to do this…

called the Rio +20, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

…by jetting off to RIO!

RIO by the Sea OH oh me oh oh my oh

If only the technology existed for people to have a meeting and share documents where they were, then it would not be necessary to jet all these international civil servants and NGO members, charities and of course their support staffs to RIO to eat and drink and opine on how to keep people from wasting the world resources.

If you can explain to me how contributors to these people are any different from those who sent their dollars to keep Oral Roberts alive, I’d really appreciate it.

Footnote 1: If we are supposed to live like Indonesians does that include the dog eating and pipe beating?)

Footnote 2: Slightly unrelated: On the Oral Roberts business can someone explain to me why being “called home” is bad to a Christian who preaches “one saved always saved?”

Update: Speaking of things this reminds me of

The 4th Doctor: …A Lost mine, A phoney map are people still falling for that old guff I mean are they?

Romana 1: You mean you didn’t believe his story?

The 4th Doctor:

Romana 1: But he had such an honest face?

The 4th Doctor: Romana, you can’t be a successful thief without an honest face can you?

or in the WWE’s case, a pretty web site and an epic report of doom.

Update: Coincidentally at PJ Media today it appears the Hockey stick is broken:

It was clear from the emails that Briffa had been telling one story publicly and another privately as to his reasons for not including the devastating data, but the tide finally turned last month, when the University of East Anglia was finally forced by the British Information Commissioner to at least tell McIntyre which data sets were used in its results.

They link and quote the blog Bishop Hill. PJ media finishes thus:

But at a minimum it should be the final blow to the hockey stick, and perhaps to the very notion that bristlecone pines and larches are accurate thermometers. It should also be a final blow to the credibility of many of the leading lights of climate “science,” but based on history, it probably won’t be, at least among the political class. What it really should be is the beginning of the major housecleaning necessary if the field is to have any scientific credibility, but that may have to await a general reformation of academia itself. It would help, though, if we get a new government next year that cuts off funding to such charlatans, and the institutions that whitewash their unscientific behavior.

Update 2: Hotair notes the study but misses the Rio Angle

BTW for those who aren’t familiar with the Mostel version here is one more modern.

Here is a story that for some reason hasn’t gotten a lot of traction in the debate on “Palestinian” statehood.

One of the things you hear the Arab world scream about is the “right of return” that is, the right of Palestinian refugees who neighboring Arab countries have kept in refugee camps for decades as 2nd class citizens to go back to Israel. This has been used as a club against Israel.

Well naturally if there is a Palestinian state these people would have somewhere to go. After all “Palestinians” would properly live in “Palestine” wouldn’t they?

The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state…

Now as a person who considered the “right of return” as BS I can see that argument, Israel took in every Jew who was driven out of the surrounding Arab states, why couldn’t the Arab states take care of their Palestinian brothers that they supposedly care so much for.

But of course that doesn’t apply to Palestinian refugees who are in refugee camps already in the borders of what would be in Palestine proper right?

This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where Abdullah says Palestinians reside. Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”

So “Palestinians” currently living in refugee camps in “Palestine” would not be considered citizens and kept in refugee camps? You’ve got to be kidding me! Evelyn Gordon reacts:

For years, the world has backed a Palestinian state on the grounds Palestinians are stateless people who deserve a country of their own. And now, a senior Palestinian official has announced once they have received a state, most Palestinians will still be stateless – even those who actually live in “Palestine.”

Moreover, the new state won’t provide these residents with any services: It expects UNRWA – or, more accurately, the American and European taxpayers who provide the bulk of that organization’s funding – to continue providing their schooling, healthcare, welfare allowances, etc.

Well that’s one way to keep your budget balanced, but Evelyn thinks that it’s not about the money:

…the PA doesn’t want a state to serve its people’s needs; it wants a state to further its goal of destroying Israel. Hence the refugees can’t be given citizenship; that would undermine its demand to resettle them in Israel, thereby destroying the Jewish state demographically.

If you are a person on the left and you still support a “Palestinian” state after then, then like the “Palestinians” I suspect you don’t believe in the two state solution, you support a 1 state solution with Israel eliminated.

I hit the Obama administration pretty hard here so I want to acknowledge something they did right today:

U.S. diplomats walked out of the U.N. General Assembly Thursday as Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a fiercely anti-American speech, attacking the U.S. as an “arrogant power” ruled by greed.

Good for the administration, a public rebuke to Ahmadinejad is well deserved.

A cynical person might say it’s because of NY-9 but I think that’s irrelevant, the right thing is the right thing and I don’t care why it’s done.

One thing I would like to point out from the article:

Ahmadinejad also attacked the United States for its history of slavery, accused it of causing two world wars and using a nuclear bomb against “defenseless people.” He further said Washington was guilty of imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America

Exit question: How are those accusations any different from our liberal academics in colleges all over the United States, and if it is proper for the Obama administration to walk out of the UN when those accusations are made there, should student walk out of their classes when they are made here?

At Patterico a relevant question has been asked concerning Libya that is not being asked enough concerning president Obama’s decision to go to war in Libya.

But before we hammer the President too hard, ask yourself a simple question. Is he right, right now? Forget what he said when he represented one of the most liberal jurisdictions in America, but is he right, right now?

The answer: It depends on how you look at it.

If you look at is in terms of preventing a slaughter, then yes. Our actions prevented an immediate slaughter and are thus worthwhile in the short term. The trick will be to keep it from becoming a bigger slaughter in the long term.

If you look at it in terms of dealing with troublemakers then perhaps. As a general rule if you have a chance to get rid of an enemy (Gaddafi) one should take the opportunity, however the time to have acted was when the rebels were outside of Tripoli not when Gaddafi was outside of Benghazi.

If you look at it in terms of national interest then frankly the answer is No. The rebels who are fighting him seem to also be fighting us elsewhere. If we give over Libya to a different set of enemies they can use that state to sponsor war against us. This is a very bad idea. Additionally historically we have gotten little payback when we have stuck our necks out for Arab countries in general.

All of this is pretty moot now that we are in, WE ARE IN. The real question is what will be the result of our actions. Here are the three possible results

#1. Gaddafi wins: I think this is the least likely outcome. As long as there is some kind of no-fly zone it becomes a ground fight, Benghazi can still fall but if his armor heads toward Tobruk it is very vulnerable from the air. If the west is willing to take out his tanks and armor then Gaddafi can’t finish the job. Of course if the west gets cold feet this goes from the least likely outcome to the most likely outcome, but I think that England and France have too much invested for them to let this happen.

#2 The Rebels win: This has a better chance of happening because you can’t be sure how loyal the forces supporting Gaddafi are. As long as the money holds out the hired guns from the south will stay loyal, but the loss of air superiority makes a huge difference. Of course it’s also a question of taking back cities held by the government which I think is not possible unless Gaddafi and his sons are dead. The question becoming if the rebels win, will they be grateful or will they use the new Libya as an Islamic state to support our foes internationally?

#3 The partition/administration of Libya. Almost certainly the final result. The west without US leadership doesn’t have the staying power or the willingness to actually win the war or commit the ground troops necessary to do so. Sans such will the end result will be a deal to save face for the west that allows Gaddafi’s family in charge of the east where his tribe lives and the rebels in charge of the west. That allows Gaddafi to claim a victory over the west while the west claims success in its mission even as the east is purged of supporters of the rebellion.

And of course this result is the worst of all possible results for the US. We will have a Gaddafi family looking for revenge by proxy in the east while in the west the rebels, who never liked us in the first place, will blame us for the failure to take the country and the purge of their supporters in the east. Since they were already supporting wars against us they will now have a nation to do so with, and it will be a nation “supported’ by the UN.

This is a mess full of bad choices and results. We can only hope it is done wisely.

Let’s see, removing a tyrant dictator with bloodthirsty sons who controls a lot of oil and has been killing his people for years.

Yup that sounds like Iraq to me.

Can someone explain to me how Morning Joe is going on about that “we might be too late” while advocating an Afghan pullout?

I hope it works, but I think Gaddafi takes Benghazi before a single plane makes it in the air unless Egypt invades first.

Update: Boy I think I’ve never been proven wrong so fast:

Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa says Libya is declaring an immediate cease-fire and stopping all military operations.

Friday’s decision comes after the U.N. voted to authorized a no-fly zone and “all necessary measures” to protect the Libyan people, including airstrikes.

Koussa says the cease-fire “will take the country back to safety” and ensure security for all Libyans.

I actually didn’t think that Gaddafi was this smart. By calling a ceasefire he gets the chance to consolidate the gains he has made. He takes away the ability of NATO and the west to strike. As long as they are not attacking they will have a hard time justifying bombing.

This will also force the rebels in Benghazi to actually form a government and act like one. How they act and what they do will also be instructive.

Additionally Gaddafi is an old man, if this goes into a long diplomatic negotiation he will be able to string things along for at the very least months, and perhaps years. The end result? Either a partition or a face saving resignation and transfer of power to his sons.

This may or may not work out, but the solution will not be a quick one.

Update 2: Ed Morrissey comments

Imagine if the UN had been pressed into action two or three weeks ago. Rebels would still hold a large portion of Libya, and Gaddafi’s military would be forced to make a choice between an aging tyrant rapidly losing leverage and a populace clearly ready to seize its own destiny. Even a week ago, rebels still held key positions and Gaddafi was having trouble mounting any large-scale offensives.

Now Gaddafi can afford to offer a cease-fire. It protects his air force while changing very little on the ground. He has the main rebellion cut off in Benghazi and has secured his control over the other rebellious areas. He can afford to wait out the rebels and lay siege to Libya’s second-largest city, secure in the knowledge that the West won’t further intervene. It took them this long to arrange the no-fly zone, and Gaddafi knows that the West has no interest in another ground war in the region (and for good reasons).

As you know I’m very Roman Catholic. I’ve argued that “Gay Marriage” is just an exercise in narcissism and have absolutely no problem with the Church’s doctrine on homosexuality and I stand by that.

However this is simply wrong:

Arab and African nations succeeded Tuesday in getting a U.N. General Assembly panel to delete from a resolution condemning unjustified executions a specific reference to killings due to sexual orientation.

That’s bad, but this is simply embarrassing:

That amendment narrowly passed 79-70. The resolution then was approved by the committee, which includes all 192 U.N. member states, with 165 in favor, 10 abstentions and no votes against.

That’s as Rush would put it, Zip Zero Nada, no England, No Holland, No Canada, and no US.

Cripes according to many on the left I’d be considered a religious fanatic for being a believing Catholic and I think this is a disgrace.

And to those in the LGBT community who voted for this administration I say again….SUCKERS!

Don’t worry you still have Ken Jennings.