Dear Family & Friends,

As our Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu says: “This march of giving concessions to Iran will feed hundreds of billions of dollars into its terror machine.”

As Charles Krauthammer concludes: “Obama will get his “legacy.” Kerry will get his Nobel. And Iran will get the bomb.”

What can we do about it? Shrei Gevalt! Buy water. And hug your children.

“Shrei Gevalt” – creatively! Take all the multiple talking points within these forwarded articles, use them to write, speak, draw mocking cartoons, demonstrate….

Wed. July 22 in New York, Time Square, 5:30-7:30 STOP IRAN’S NUKES NOW! RALLY

Plus, arrange your own Rallies, Speaking Occasions, Conferences, Letter Writing to Media & Congress. It’s never too late. Always the right time. Support the organizations listed on the Rally poster. The other side has lots of oil money. We have lots of brains & ideas. We will always have major issues to tackle. Let’s train up & be smart. Help the college students near you counter the negative propaganda from the other side. Help the high school students learn to be pro-active. Those students may be your own children. If not, ‘rent some students’ to help. Put up the money & the sites for learning how to address the BDSers & learn to Counter-Boycott. “This will hurt you more than it’ll hurt me.” Get some local activists to address your chosen audience. I’ve done it from scratch. It’s not hard. It’s fun. And it’s very worthwhile!

Meanwhile in the calm before the storm: Have a great night, a swell day.

1.Netanyahu: Israel Won’t Pay the Price of Capitulation to Iran

7.Iran plays the West by Omer Dostri

8.Still too eager for a deal by Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi

9.Iran FM, Netanyahu confidant wage op-ed war over nuclear deal

10.Mike Huckabee uses 1964 ‘daisy girl’ ad to warn against Iran

11.APNewsBreak: Diplomats: Iran nuke deal expected Sunday

12.SIS flyer shows beheaded Statue of Liberty waving group’s flag

16.Why Are Liberals Bashing Michael Oren? by David Suissa

1.Netanyahu: Israel Won’t Pay the Price of Capitulation to Iran By Hezki Ezra

Prime Minister begins Cabinet meeting by slamming talks in Vienna as feeding ‘hundreds of billions’ to Iranian terror machine. Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com First Publish: 7/12/2015, 12:59 PM

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu further blasted the string of concessions during the Iran negotiations on Sunday, during the opening remarks in his Sunday Cabinet meeting.

“Iran’s supreme leader, [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, said that Iran should still fight the United States even if there is an agreement,” he began. “The President of Iran, [Hassan] Rouhani, stands at the head of the march of hatred in the streets of Tehran, in which US and Israeli flags were burned, and in which many chanted ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.'”

“All of this is happening as the parade of concessions to Iran continues in Vienna, even concessions on issues that have been marked as red lines during the talks in Lausanne,” Netanyahu stated. “This march of giving concessions to Iran will feed hundreds of billions of dollars to its terror machine.”

“It paves Iran’s way to many nuclear bombs and gives it hundreds of billions of dollars for its terrorism and conquest machine, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world,” he continued. “Iran does not hide its intention to continue its murderous aggression even against those with whom it is negotiating.”

Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif

“Perhaps there is someone among the great powers who is prepared to capitulate to this reality that Iran is dictating, which includes its unending calls for the destruction of Israel – we will not pay the price for this.”

The remarks follow a rare US briefing on the deal to Israeli officials Sunday morning, wherein United States Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman stated that both sides are aiming for a compromise on major issues by Monday.

Netanyahu also addressed the abduction of two Israeli citizens by Hamas, particularly mentally ill man Avraham Mengistu, saying that Israel is “doing everything it can” to bring the two back.

He also stated that Israel expects the international community to call for Hamas to return both citizens to Israel safe and sound.

JewishPress.com Published: July 12th, 2015 Latest update: July 10th, 2015

The devil is not in the details. It’s in the entire conception of the Iran deal, animated by President Obama’s fantastical belief that he, uniquely, could achieve detente with a fanatical Islamist regime whose foundational purpose is to cleanse the Middle East of the poisonous corruption of American power and influence.

In pursuit of his desire to make the Islamic Republic into an accepted, normalized “successful regional power,” Obama decided to take over the nuclear negotiations. At the time, Tehran was reeling — the rial plunging, inflation skyrocketing, the economy contracting — under a regime of international sanctions painstakingly constructed over a decade.

Then, instead of welcoming Congress’ attempt to tighten sanctions to increase the pressure on the mullahs, Obama began the negotiations by loosening sanctions, injecting billions into the Iranian economy (which began growing again in 2014) and conceding in advance an Iranian right to enrich uranium.

It’s been downhill ever since. Desperate for a legacy deal, Obama has played the supplicant, abandoning every red line his administration had declared essential to any acceptable deal.

Inspections

They were to be anywhere, anytime, unimpeded. Now? Total cave. Unfettered access has become “managed access.” Nuclear inspectors will have to negotiate and receive Iranian approval for inspections. Which allows them denial and/or crucial delay for concealing any clandestine activities.

To give a flavor of the degree of our capitulation, the administration played Iran’s lawyer on this one, explaining that, after all, “the United States of America wouldn’t allow anybody to get into every military site, so that’s not appropriate.” Apart from the absurdity of morally equating America with the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, if we were going to parrot the Iranian position, why wait 19 months to do so — after repeatedly insisting on free access as essential to any inspection regime?

Coming clean on past nuclear activity

The current interim agreement that governed the past 19 months of negotiation required Iran to do exactly that. Tehran has offered nothing. The administration had insisted that this accounting was essential because how can you verify future illegal advances in Iran’s nuclear program if you have no baseline?

After continually demanding access to their scientists, plans and weaponization facilities, Secretary of State John Kerry two weeks ago airily dismissed the need, saying he is focused on the future, “not fixated” on the past. And that we have “absolute knowledge” of the Iranian program anyway — a whopper that his staffers had to spend days walking back.

Not to worry, we are told. The accounting will be done after the final deal is signed. Which is ridiculous. If the Iranians haven’t budged on disclosing previous work under the current sanctions regime, by what logic will they comply after sanctions are lifted?

Sanctions relief

These were to be gradual and staged as the International Atomic Energy Agency certified Iranian compliance over time. Now we’re going to be releasing up to $150 billion as an upfront signing bonus. That’s 25 times the annual budget of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Enough to fuel a generation of intensified Iranian aggression from Yemen to Lebanon to Bahrain.

Yet three months ago, Obama expressed nonchalance about immediate sanctions relief. It’s not the issue, he said. The real issue is “snap-back” sanctions to be reimposed if Iran is found in violation.

Good grief. Iran won’t be found in violation. The inspection regime is laughable and the bureaucratic procedures endless. Moreover, does anyone imagine that Russia and China will reimpose sanctions? Or that the myriad European businesses preparing to join the Iranian gold rush the day the deal is signed will simply turn around and go home?

Nonnuclear-related sanctions

The administration insisted that the nuclear talks would not affect separate sanctions imposed because of Iranian aggression and terrorism. That was then. The administration is now leaking that everything will be lifted.

Taken together, the catalog of capitulations is breathtaking: spot inspections, disclosure of previous nuclear activity, gradual sanctions relief, retention of nonnuclear sanctions.

What’s left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in U.S. diplomatic history.

How did it come to this? With every concession, Obama and Kerry made clear they were desperate for a deal.

And they will get it.

Obama will get his “legacy.” Kerry will get his Nobel. And Iran will get the bomb.

About the Author: Charles Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, Fox News commentator, and bestselling author. His most recent book, “Things That Matter” (Crown Forum, 2013), spent several months at the top of the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list.

3.PM Benjamin Netanyahu says emerging nuclear deal “endangers peace of entire world” • As Vienna talks continue, Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls for ongoing struggle against U.S. • Iranian President Hassan Rouhani: We have charmed the world.

News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

As negotiators at the Iran nuclear talks labored to make headway, Iran’s supreme leader called Saturday for the struggle against the U.S. to continue, in comments suggesting that the Iranian regime’s hostility toward the U.S. will persist no matter what the outcome of the talks.

The negotiations entered their 15th day Saturday with no indications of major progress after three extensions and four target dates for a deal, and diplomats said it remained unclear whether an agreement could be reached by Monday, the latest deadline.

Iran and the U.S. have threatened to walk away unless the other side makes concessions. Although it was unclear whether Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was preparing the ground for the failure of the talks, his comments were likely to add to skepticism over the outcome at the negotiating table.

Khamenei was quoted as calling the U.S. “the true embodiment of arrogance.” Khamenei told university students in Tehran to be “prepared to continue the struggle against arrogant powers.”

“Fighting global arrogance is the core of our revolution and we cannot put it on hold,” Khamenei said.

Even if Khamenei was not signaling that the talks have failed, his comments appear to be a blow to U.S. hopes that an agreement will lead to improved bilateral relations that could translate into increased cooperation in a common cause — the fight against Islamic radical organizations, such as the Islamic State group.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had hinted at just that last week, suggesting a deal acceptable to his country will open the door to joint efforts on that front.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani indicated talks could go either way.

“We behaved so skillfully that if talks won’t succeed, the world would accept that Iran is for logic and dialogue and never left the negotiating table … and if we succeed by the grace of God, the world will know that the Iranian nation can resolve its problems through logic,” his website quoted him as saying. “Twenty-two months of negotiation means we have managed to charm the world, and it’s an art.”

At Sunday’s cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed Khamenei and Rouhani, saying, “The ruler of Iran, Khamenei, was quoted as saying the U.S. must be fought, regardless of whether there is a [nuclear] agreement. The president of Iran, Rouhani, led a hate march in the streets of Tehran in which U.S. and Israeli flags were burned and many chanted ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.’

“All of this took place while the parade of concessions continued in Vienna, concessions even on issues that were marked as red lines in the Lausanne deal, which itself was a bad deal. [The emerging deal] paves the way for Iran to get many nuclear bombs and gives it hundreds of billions of dollars to fund its machine of terror and conquest. This, this deal endangers the peace of the entire world.

“Iran is not hiding its intentions to continue its murderous aggression against those who are now negotiating with it. Maybe some among the powers are willing to give in to a reality dictated by Iran, which includes endless calls for the destruction of Israel. But we will not accept this.”

Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met again Saturday, this time with European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini present. Of the chief diplomats of the six countries negotiating with Iran, British Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond and Foreign Ministers Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany and Laurent Fabius of France also are already in Vienna. Kerry spoke by telephone to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The Chinese and Russian foreign ministers have said they will come to Vienna if a deal appears close.

On Friday, Kerry suggested that some progress had been made, telling reporters that the “atmosphere is very constructive,” but stressing that “very difficult issues” remained to be resolved. Since the start of the current round 15 days ago, he has said twice that the negotiations couldn’t be open-ended and warned that the U.S. was prepared to call an end to the talks.

Any deal is meant to clamp long-term and verifiable restrictions on Iranian nuclear programs that are technically adaptable to make weapons in exchange for sanctions relief for Iran.

The scope of access to U.N. inspectors monitoring Iran’s nuclear program remains a sticking point. The Americans want no restrictions. Iranian officials say unrestricted monitoring could be a cover for Western spying. Diplomats say Iran’s negotiators have signaled a willingness to compromise, but hardliners in Iran remain opposed to broad U.N. inspections.

Another unresolved matter is Iran’s demand for a U.N. arms embargo to be lifted as part of sanctions relief, a stance supported by Russia and China but opposed by the U.S. and some Europeans.

The current round was supposed to conclude on June 30, but was extended until July 7, then July 10 and now July 13. The sides had hoped to seal a deal before the end of Thursday in Washington to avoid delays in implementing their promises.

By missing that target, the U.S. and Iran now have to wait for a 60-day congressional review period during which President Barack Obama can’t waive sanctions on Iran. Had they reached a deal by Thursday, the review would have been only 30 days.

4.US Officials Brief Israel on Looming Iran Deal By Nitsan Keidar

US confident deal is close, as Israeli officials begin looking ahead to meeting between Netanyahu and Obama sometime over the summer. Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com First Publish: 7/12/15, 8am

Israeli officials were briefed over the weekend by a US team regarding developments in negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 world powers, a senior diplomatic source told Arutz Sheva.

According to the source, the head of the Israeli team being updated was National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen, while United States Under Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman, led the briefing.

Sherman, the leading US representative in talks with Iran, last updated the Israelis on the looming deal a few weeks ago.

At the briefing, the US clarified that while significant gaps exist between Iran and world powers, there is still a great willingness, especially on the part of the West, to reach a compromise by Monday – the most recent deadline for the end of talks.

The senior official noted the US team expressed optimism about the talks, and did not mention US President Barack Obama’s recent assertion that the chances of a nuclear agreement with Iran are “less than 50-50.”

Israeli diplomatic officials agreed with the US team that the chances of an agreement not being signed are very low, and as such have already begun preparations for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to visit the US.

Obama apparently intends to invite Netanyahu to Washington immediately after concluding talks with Iran, marking the Prime Minister’s first official visit to the US since being reelected in March.

The US administration has expressed its hope for Netanyahu to visit in mid-August, along with Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon (Likud).

In addition to a private meeting with Netanyahu, Obama will also seek a discussion with US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, Netanyahu and Ya’alon to sum up a compensation package to Israel, and present it to Congress before a vote on the Iran agreement.

5.Rouhani: We Have Charmed the World: Iranian President says that even if talks with major powers fail, Iran has been able to “charm the world, and it’s an art.”

By Elad Benari Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com First Publish: 7/12/2015, 5:43 AM

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Saturday that if nuclear talks with major powers succeeded, the world would see that Tehran had solved its biggest political problem by negotiation and logical argument, Reuters reported, citing an Iranian news agency.

“Even if the nuclear talks fail, our diplomacy showed the world that we are logical. We never left the negotiation table and always provided the best answer,” the Nasim news agency quoted Rouhani as saying in a meeting with artists.

“Twenty-two months of negotiation means we have managed to charm the world, and it’s an art,” the Iranian president added.

The talks on a permanent deal between Iran and six world powers, which have already been extended several times and were to end Friday, were extended yet again through the weekend.

Major disagreements in the talks have included Iran’s refusal to allow inspections on sensitive nuclear sites, its refusal to disclose the military aspects of its nuclear program, and in a newly added demand, Iran has called to end the UN arms embargo on the Islamic regime.

One Iranian official admitted on Thursday that “God only knows” if a deal is close, echoing comments attributed to U.S. President Barack Obama a day before by a senior Democratic senator, who said Obama believes the chances of a nuclear agreement with Iran are “less than 50-50.”

As for Rouhani’s comments, Israel has warned the world many times not to be fooled by the Iranian president’s “charm offensive”.

Since being elected Rouhani, who the West has branded as a “moderate”, has indicated an interest in a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, with hopes that the harsh sanctions imposed on the country would be lifted if it negotiated more with the West.

Iranian demonstrators chant “Down with America” and “Death to Israel” during nationwide pro-Palestinian rallies on Friday • Iranian President Hassan Rouhani makes appearance at rally in Tehran at which U.S., British, Israeli and Saudi flags were burned. Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff

Tens of thousands of Iranians chanted “Down with America” and “Death to Israel” during annual pro-Palestinian rallies nationwide on Friday, as a top leader said the U.S. would be making a “strategic mistake” if it pulled out of ongoing negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program.

The Al-Quds Day rallies took place as Iran and six world powers were meeting in Vienna to work out a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for easing tens of billions of dollars in economic penalties on Iran.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani made a brief appearance at the rally in the capital, Tehran, but did not mention the nuclear talks that have blown past two extensions and entered the 14th day of the current round on Friday. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned on Thursday that the Americans were ready to leave.

“If you drive the talks into a dead end then it will be you who will be committing a strategic mistake,” Iran’s parliament speaker Ali Larijani said at Friday prayers following the rally in Tehran, addressing the U.S. “And its outcome will not benefit you, since Iran’s nuclear staff are ready to accelerate nuclear technology at a higher speed than before.”

At the rally, the hard-line protesters wrapped U.S., British, Israeli and Saudi flags around pillars and set them ablaze.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has observed Al-Quds Day during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Iran says the occasion is meant to express support for Palestinians and emphasize the importance of Jerusalem for Muslims.

Iran does not recognize Israel and supports terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, which have both fought wars against Israel.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif penned an op-ed in the British daily Financial Times last week, in which he called on world powers to clinch a nuclear agreement with Iran in order to join forces and “confront the menace of violent extremism.”

In response to Zarif’s sentiments, Israel’s Foreign Ministry Director General Dore Gold issued his own op-ed, featured on the British news website The Telegraph, “reminding” Zarif’s readers that the same country urging war against Islamic State “extremists” was actually sponsoring organized terrorism “in some 30 countries and on five continents.”

“The only agreement that can withstand the test of time is a balanced one,” Zarif wrote. “Make no mistake: any attempt to gain at the expense of others is bound to be short-lived. Iran is ready to strike a fair and balanced deal and prepared to open new horizons to address the shared challenges of far greater magnitude.

“Among these shared threats is the increasingly brutal extremism that is engulfing the heart of the Middle East, and even extending into Europe. … Iran has spared no efforts in this war between humanity and inhumanity, where entire countries are being torn to shreds by roving bands of hooded men with no regard for the sanctity of human life,” he added.

“With a final nuclear agreement at hand, I hope my counterparts will make the historic choice between cooperation and conflict,” Zarif urged.

In response, Gold titled his article “Trusting Iran to stop terrorism is like inviting an arsonist to join the fire brigade.”

In it he argued that “the idea that Iran is a partner in the fight against terrorism is not only disingenuous but also absurd. What Zarif is seeking is a leap of faith by his Western readers, who are asked to believe that a country which has been repeatedly identified as the largest state supporter of terrorism in the world will suddenly be altered by an agreement over its nuclear program into an ally against terrorism. He is asking the world to simply trust Iran that this transformation is about to happen.”

Gold further asserted that “Zarif is the last Iranian official who should talk about rejecting terrorism. Last January, he paid a highly publicized visit to Lebanon and laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh, the mastermind of Hezbollah terrorism, who was responsible for the attacks in the 1980s on American and French forces in Beirut, hijacking civilian aircraft and taking international hostages.”

Middle East Washington Post

11.APNewsBreak: Diplomats: Iran nuke deal expected Sunday

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, centre, meet with foreign ministers and representatives of Germany, France, China, Britain, Russia and the European Union during the current round of nuclear talks with Iran, being held in Vienna, Austria July 10, 2015.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged Iran to make the “tough political decisions” needed to reach an agreement but Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accused major powers on Friday of backtracking on previous pledges and throwing up new “red lines” at nuclear talks. (Carlos Barria/Pool via AP) (Associated Press)

By George Jahn and Matthew Lee?|?AP July 12 at 8:53 AM

VIENNA — Diplomats say negotiators at the Iran nuclear talks are expected to reach a provisional agreement Sunday on a historic deal that would curb the country’s atomic program in return for sanctions relief.

Two diplomats at the talks tell The Associated Press the envisioned accord will be sent to capitals for review and, barring last-minute objections, be announced on Monday.

The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly.

The agreement would cap nearly a decade of diplomacy, including the current round in Vienna that has run more than two weeks and blown through three deadlines.

Following reported death of top Islamic State commander in Afghanistan in U.S. drone strike, image circulates showing aftermath of an attack on New York City landmark • “Coming Soon,” written in English and Arabic at bottom of the image.

In a threat to the U.S., the Islamic State group is circulating an image that shows a decapitated Statue of Liberty waving the group’s flag.

At the bottom of the image, the phrase “Coming Soon” is written in English and Arabic.

The image began circulating shortly after it was reported on Saturday that Hafez Saeed, the top Islamic State commander in Afghanistan, had been killed in a U.S. drone strike.

Eugene Kontorovich

Contributor, The Volokh Conspiracy

15.The State Department’s response to Israel boycott law — a line-item veto for trade legislation? By Eugene Kontorovich July 10

The State Department has recently tried to minimize the significance and effect of provisions in the newly enacted trade promotion laws that seek to discourage boycotts and other economic sanctions against Israel. Some have suggested that the State Department’s spin on these laws effectively negates them. But while the administration’s backtracking on a law it just signed proceeds from inaccurate facts and bad policy, it does not — and cannot — annul the legislation.

Both houses of Congress unanimously introduced the provision as an amendment to the Trade Promotion Authority that instructs that the United States to adopt as part of its trade negotiation policy the goal of “discourag[ing] politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel” by foreign countries.

The day after President Obama signed the law, a State Department spokesman expressed disapproval of the provisions that make it clear that the law applies in full to “business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories.”

To be clear, contrary to some spin put on the statement, it carefully skirted saying that the president will not enforce or will nullify any part of the law. “The U.S. government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements or activity associated with them, and, by extension, does not pursue policies or activities that would legitimize them,” the spokesman said.

The State Department statement does not even read the statute accurately. It criticizes the law of “conflating” Israel and the territories. In fact, the opposite is true. The law separately refers to “the State of Israel” and “territories under its jurisdiction,” which distinguishes between them.

This is quite different from the passport provision recently held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, where the law was challenged for referring to “Jerusalem” as being in “Israel,” against the Executive’s view of the matter. Such a passport designation would assimilate Jerusalem to Israel and amount to an act of recognition, the administration argued. This statute does no such thing.

What the State Department seems to be suggesting is that Congress cannot legislate a particular trade regime toward particular territories, even when it makes no suggestion about their sovereign status. That proposition has no legal basis.

Zivotofsky itself suggests otherwise. Indeed, the Solicitor General conceded in oral argument that Congress could legitimately pass trade laws against the foreign policy of the Executive, indeed, even if it would seriously interfere with his foreign diplomatic efforts. (Tr. at. 27.)

The State Department’s comments also badly mischaracterize U.S. policy on the matter. The United States has not consistently opposed settlements. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both expressed varying degrees of support for them. Moreover, the question of whether one opposes or supports settlements is distinct from what the rules dealing with economic activity there shall be.

On this, U.S. policy is longstanding and clear. U.S. laws have long applied the same economic treatment to all areas under Israeli jurisdiction (including Jerusalem). For example, the pair of Anti-Boycott laws passed in the late 1970s treat Israeli companies the same regardless of their location in relation to the Green Line. And the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Implementation Act, first passed in 1985, affords areas under Israeli jurisdiction the same treatment as all “Israeli” products for U.S. trade purposes.

The administration’s statement refers broadly to its opposition to “settlements,” Jewish communities in the West Bank. But the law has nothing to do with settlements. It is about business activity. One can have settlements without business activity and business activity without settlements. For example, most people living in the West Bank make their living inside the Green Line. These are not remote colonies, but places literally next door to established Israel economic centers.

And one can have business activity without settlements — many Israel factories employ local Palestinians, or even Israelis residing inside the Green Line. Only a redefinition of settlements as meaning “Jews having any kind of physical or constructive activity” would cover this.

Indeed, the United Kingdom Supreme Court just last year held that Israeli factories in the West Bank are separate from, and do not cause settlements, for the reasons just mentioned.

The State Department also refers to opposition to “activity associated with” settlements – i.e., any Israeli activity across the Green Line. That is entirely inconsistent with previous administration policy, which opposed the demographic growth of or construction in settlements, not the output of factories.

This is a radical new idea. Indeed, if settlements supposedly prejudice the two-state solution by creating demographic realities, then factories, wineries and tourist sites have no such vices. Obama himself has participated in “activity associated with” settlements when he was running for office in 2008 — he visited the Western Wall, in what the administration regards as the “settlement” of the Jewish presence in the Old City of Jerusalem.

The administration’s criticism of the bill it just signed is particularly striking in light of Zivotofsky. Since Foggy Bottom adamantly refuses to treat Western Jerusalem (i.e. part of “pre-67” Israel) as part of Israel, the only way Congress can make U.S. trade policy toward Israel’s capital is by using language like “areas under Israel’s jurisdiction.” It is the administration policy of not treating the nation’s pre-67 capital as part of the country that blurs the Green Line, not Congress’s law.

Finally, the State Department repeatedly referred to the “two state solution” and the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Presumably it has no objection to the law’s application to the Golan Heights, which is not part of that conflict.

If the Executive were considering not enforcing the law, it would be extraordinary constitutional usurpation by the Executive, effectively giving State Department spokesmen line-item veto power over enacted trade laws. Obama’s lawyers may have greatly over-read Zivotofsky as holding that the chief executive can nullify laws willy-nilly if they involve foreign affairs, or maybe just Israel. This would be particularly extraordinary as applied to foreign trade laws, all of which by definition have serious foreign policy implications.

Eugene Kontorovich is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, and an expert on constitutional & international law. He also writes & lectures frequently about the Arab-Israel conflict.

16.Why Are Liberals Bashing Michael Oren? by David Suissa

In Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com

http://www.jewishjournal.com/david_suissa/article/why_are_liberals_bashing_michael_oren

After interviewing former ambassador Michael Oren last week at the Museum of Tolerance, and reading countless articles attacking him, I think I’ve figured out why his new book, “Ally,” has struck such a sensitive nerve, especially with pro-Obama liberal Zionists.

In case you’ve been on Mars lately, Oren has been under relentless attack for his candid and sharp criticism of President Barack Obama and his policies, which he believes have hurt Israel. As his friend Yossi Klein Halevi wrote in the Times of Israel, “Michael has been called everything from a publicity hound to a virtual traitor sacrificing Israel’s relations with its most important ally for the sole purpose of selling books.”

What is disappointing is that much of the criticism has little to do with the main thrust of the book, which is Obama’s record on Israel and the Middle East. Why is that?

After all, it’s not as if liberal Zionists who support Obama can’t handle criticism of their president — they live with that all the time. What is it about Oren’s particular criticism that has made so many of them so defensive?

It’s not just what you’re hearing — that the Obama administration and its supporters are concerned that Oren’s criticism of the Iranian nuclear deal will undermine final negotiations. That is a part of it, but there’s more.

Think about it. What is the crown jewel of liberal Zionist aspirations? What is the one thing they crave above all else that will secure a Jewish and democratic Israel? That’s right, the two-state solution.

Oren’s book is threatening to liberal Zionists because it makes a compelling case that their hero Obama has severely undermined the very thing they crave — negotiations towards a two-state solution.

With the sharp eye of a historian, Oren explains how, in Obama’s zeal to create diplomatic “daylight” with Israel while reaching out to the Arab/Muslim world, Obama brought terminal darkness to the peace process.

By making Israeli settlements the major obstacle to peace, Obama ignored fundamental obstacles such as chronic Palestinian rejection of a Jewish state and the teaching of Jew-hatred in Palestinian society. By pressuring only Israel — the one party that has, in the past, evacuated settlements and made peace offers that got rejected — he gave Palestinian leadership zero incentive to negotiate, let alone make any concessions.

While Prime Minister Netanyahu’s grating style and bunker mentality certainly didn’t help matters, Oren reminds us that, despite opposition from his own party, Netanyahu declared support for a two-state solution and implemented a settlement freeze that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called “unprecedented.” In any case, once Obama launched his “pressure only Israel” policy at the beginning of his term, the die of failure was cast.

From the get-go, Obama’s approach turned off the majority of Israelis and made them unwilling to take more risks for peace. In one of the crucial insights of his book, Oren notes that Israelis take risks when they feel secure there is no daylight with America, and that having no daylight on military security but plenty of daylight on diplomacy simply doesn’t work in the Middle East.

The irony, of course, is that Obama’s obsession with pressuring Israel ended up killing the incentive for both sides to negotiate. This is not a personal criticism of Obama, it’s an anatomy of a failure. Even if you believe that the president was motivated by “tough love” for Israel, it’s hard not to conclude that his policy resulted in one big failure for both sides.

This is a painful pill for many liberal Zionists to swallow, especially when delivered by a reputable historian and longtime champion of the two-state solution. Oren’s credible voice has forced his critics to confront the unpleasant possibility that it was their man Obama — and not the hated Netanyahu — who failed them the most on a cause they so cherish.

The candid analysis in “Ally” serves as a cautionary tale for all future leaders and activists who care about the two-state solution. Instead of demonizing Oren, his critics should engage him on the substance. For starters, a good debate coming out of his book would be this: Who is most responsible for the failure of the peace process — Obama, Netanyahu or Abbas?

Right now, because most of the attention is on the endgame negotiations with Iran, it’s easy to overlook the sorry saga of the failed negotiations with the Palestinians. But this is an issue that will not go away. If you want to better understand the hysterical reaction to Oren’s book, his analysis of this saga is a good place to start.

Oren had the chutzpah to tell diehard Obama supporters something they never wanted to hear, and, in return, he got weapons of mass ‘distraction’.

(JNi.media) Earlier this week, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee voted 13-2, with five abstentions, to keep the Old City of Jerusalem on its list of endangered World Heritage sites. That sounds harmless enough, seeing as Jerusalem is one of the culturally dense cities on the planet, probably the densest, while being at the center of so much violence: terrorist bombings, Molotov cocktails thrown at Jewish homes and cars, Arab drivers charging their cars into unsuspecting pedestrians, violent clashes between Palestinian youths and police on Temple Mount. There’s plenty of evidence supporting the holy city being endangered.

But that, apparently, was not on the minds of the Heritage Committee when it took its vote. In fact, the resolution does not mention even once the possibility that Arab violence might play a role in the danger the Eternal City is facing every day.

In fact, the words Arab or Palestinian are not mentioned in the resolution text. Jordan is mentioned twice, in relation to the report by the Waqf, which was adopted on its face, while the comprehensive Israeli report, answering in great detail every one of the points raised by the committee, was ignored in its entirety.

Moreover, no one over in Bonn, Germany, even bothered, it seems, to fix the error in translation from the original Arabic to English. And so, for instance, The UNESCO resolution is “deeply concerned by the persistence of the Israeli illegal excavations and works conducted by settler groups in the Old City of Jerusalem and on both sides of its Walls.”

The term “settlers” is attached regularly by Arab media to any Israeli doing anything outside what is perceived as pre-1967 Israel. In this context, it reaches an absurd imagery, which was totally lost on the authors, of archaeology-craving settlers, wrapped in their tzitzis, digging up historic treasures.

Now, the reference to the excavations being illegal has nothing to do with whether or not those archaeologist have obtained the proper permits for their projects, but with the fact that they’re working on the wrong side of the 1949 armistice line, in an area Israel annexed after 1967.

The problem is that the purpose of the UNESCO heritage project is not to decide political issues, but to protect cultural sites, such as those archaeological relics that are being demolished en-masse by Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, or Buddhist temples blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now, that would be the UNESCO kind of illegal.

Indeed, there are six sites in Syria alone the current resolution is concerned about, but they all are dealt with after the biggest problem site — Jerusalem.

UNESCO also “Regrets the damaging effect of the Jerusalem Light rail (tram line) at few meters from the Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem.”

No one knows what those damaging effects could possibly be. Since the invention of the automobile, those sturdy walls have done just fine standing as they do, a few meters from Jerusalem’s perpetually jam-packed streets. If anything, the light rail helps the situation by reducing traffic.

UNESCO also hates the new “City of David National Park” in Silwan (note the use only of the Arabic version of the original Hebrew name Shiloah) at a distance of twenty meters from the Walls of the Old City.

The City of David National Park was intended to provide protection to the walls, keeping them away from construction, in a modern Jerusalem that is as skyscraper hungry as any modern metropolis. The park includes a lovely promenade, and important sites of archaeological excavations, and the Ophel Archaeological Garden, with finds from Solomon’s Temple period.

That’s the part that angers the UNESCO resolution authors: the fact that this national park integrates all the parts of Jerusalem, east and west, Arab and Jewish, and, worse yet, that it integrates today’s Jewish Jerusalem with its ancient, Jewish past.

That would be reason for concern for most of the countries represented on the committee.

Another thing UNESCO regrets is the Western Wall elevator, which it says “severely” affects “the visual integrity and the authentic character of the site.”

The problem is that the elevator has only been approved by the Israeli government for construction in late May, 2015. At present, the only way for visitors in wheelchairs to reach the Kotel is through the road leading to Dung Gate, which is very steep. The elevator will permit the elderly and the infirm to come up to the Wall plaza with ease. But, of course, this would mean even more Jews visiting the Kotel, which, by any measure, could damage some people’s sense of “visual integrity.”

But it’s all hypothetical! The resolution actually condemns Israel for an obstruction that isn’t yet there—and “requests Israel to restore the original character of the site in conformity with its obligations under the provisions of related UNESCO Conventions and recommendations.”

That means: not so many Jews, please.

Then the UNESCO resolution “further regrets Israeli extremist groups’ continuous incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound.”

It’s not Temple Mount; it’s not Al-Aqsa or Temple Mount; it’s just Al Aqsa. Also, on the wrong side of the 67 line there are no moderate Israelis, only extremists. And they don’t act on their human right, protected by International Law, to exercise their freedom of religion — what they do is continuous incursions.

So UNESCO, naturally, “urges Israel to take necessary measures to prevent such provocative abuses that violate the sanctity and integrity of the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound and inflame tension on the ground.”

And there, with the inflamed tensions reference, is the closest the resolution comes to recognize the repeat phenomena of Arabs attacking Jews.

Then, just to make sure everyone is on the same page, the resolution “affirms … the necessity to respect and safeguard the integrity, authenticity and cultural heritage of Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound, as reflected in the Status Quo, as a Muslim Holy Site of worship and as an integral part of a World Cultural Heritage site.”

No Jews need apply.