Friday, July 24, 2015
Dear Family & Friends,
“I returned to Zion & settled inside of Jerusalem, City of Truth” Zachariah 8 is written on the top of Women-for-Israel’s Tomorrow: Women-In-Green flyer for our 21st Tisha Be’Av Eve March of Sovereignty around Jerusalem’s Old City Walls – on Moetzaei Shabbat July 25, 2015. Eicha reading at 9:30/March at 10:30 pm. I don’t remember my first March but, I’ve done it ever since. Please come & join us – seems like 10,000 Jews are walking together around our Eternal Capital in Jerusalem.
Have a wonderful night, great day, inspiring Shabbat & join us Saturday night in Jerusalem!
All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba x 2/Mom
Share our Website: WinstonIsraelInsight.com
1. Stop Iran Rally Draws 12,000 to Times Square (Photo Essay)
2.Watch: Ex-Congressman Allen West Tears into ‘Weakling’ Obama
2.a J Street Ads Target US Congressmen’s Support of Judea, Samaria
3.U.S. entry into new Iran agreement expressly violates American law.
6.’Settlement’ Confusion By Yisrael Medad Arutz Sheva IsraelNatonalNews.com
8.The Glazov Gang Exposes Islam WEDNESDAY July 22, 2015 Citizen Warrior
10.Deal worse than we could have imagined by Charles Krauthammer
11.Arlene Kushner “THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE” July 21, 2015
12.Arlene Kushner “AN ENDLESS LITANY” July 22, 2015
13.Security Asset for the United States” BY Shoshanna Bryen
1.Stop Iran Rally Draws 12,000 to Times Square (Photo Essay)
Dozens of organizations co-sponsored the Stop Iran Now rally in NYC’s Times Square, where speaker after speaker implored the 12,000 in attendance to contact Congress and “Kill this Deal!” By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus JewishPress.com Published: July 23rd, 2015
The electronic billboard screen behind the stage at the NYC Stop Iran Rally. July 22, 2015. Photo Credit: Lori Lowenthal Marcus
People said it was too late. They said it would be embarrassing because few people would show up. Those people were wrong.
A small section of the overflow crowd at the Stop Iran Now rally in Times Square, west side of 7th Avenue, at 42nd St. July 22, 2015.
The Stop Iran Now rally in New York City’s Times Square on Wednesday, late afternoon proved Americans are riled up about the deal made between the United States and the other members of the P5+1 (the U.K., France, Russia, China, plus Germany). Thousands showed up and lined 7th Avenue in Manhattan for blocks and blocks.
Stop Iran Now rally, 7th Ave. between 42nd and 41st St. July 22, 2015.
Stop Iran Now rally in NYC Times Square. July 22, 2015.
Stop Iran Now rally in NYC Times Square. Blow-up mushroom cloud was one of the props people brought to the rally.
Stop Iran Now rally in NYC Times Square. July 22, 2015.
The total count was 12,000, as Master of Ceremonies Jeff Wiesenfeld told the crowd halfway into the event.
Wiesenfeld also repeatedly called on New York Senator Chuck Schumer to do the right thing and help defeat the Iran deal.
As a former aide to New York Governor George Pataki (R), New York Senator Alfonse D’Amato (R) and New York City Mayor Ed Koch (D), Wiesenfeld told the crowd he had the opportunity to meet & to know former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Moynihan was revered as a moral hero. Pausing dramatically, Wiesenfeld addressed Schumer: “You, sir, are no Daniel Patrick Moynihan.”
Stop Iran Now rally co-organizer Jeff Wiesenfeld. July 22, 2015.
There were dozens of police and other security officers, and although the event was still going strong when it was scheduled to end at 7:30, the crowds remained, waving their flags, chanting “Kill the Deal,” and pressing against the barricades.
Every effort was made to turn the rally into a truly bipartisan event. Few of the speakers were Democrats, but that is, according to Wiesenfeld, because even those New York Democrats who initially signed on to speak were later told by their party’s leadership not to show up.
But despite those efforts, the speakers were relatively diverse, and included such self-proclaimed liberal Democrats as Harvard Law Professor (emeritus) and author Alan Dershowitz, and former United States Attorney and long-time Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morganthau.
The theme of the rally was that the nuclear deal entered into by the U.S. and its partners with Iran is not just bad, it is potentially world-shatteringly awful for the United States and for most of our closest allies both in the Middle East and throughout the world.
A sub-theme, given this took place in New York, was that U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has the ability to kill this deal, and kill it he must. There were animated chants of “Where’s Chuck?” and “Kill this deal.”
The crowd also was diverse: it spanned age, color and religions.
Media mogul Mort Zuckerman was the first speaker at the rally. He is a former chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
Zuckerman set the tone by explaining that Iran’s position is that even if sanctions are lifted and even if Iran gets all that it wanted out of the deal, the Ayatollah Khameini has unequivocally stated that they will not refrain from their positions such as “death to America” and “Death to the Zionist state.”
Zuckerman said the world is on the threshold of a vast transfer of international power away from the United States and its allies and towards the imperial, subversive Iranian nation.
WABC-AM radio personality John Batchelor Fox News analyst & WABC
radio show host Monica Crowley
Both John Batchelor & Monica Crowley called on the crowd to besiege Congress with demands to stop this terrible [Iran] deal. “A deal that will give that regime the ultimate weapons of mass destruction.” Crowley, in particular, went after President Obama, telling the crowd that “the President said he can do whatever he wants because he has a pen & a telephone.” Crowley retorted, “Guess what? We have pens & phones too!”
R. James Woolsey (front left), Herb London (front center) Robert Morganthau (front, right), Clare Lopez (2nd row, far left, partially obstructed), Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (2nd row, center) & Caroline Glick, standing, at Stop Iran Rally.
Cong. Trent Franks (R-AZ).
Cong. Trent Franks told the crowd that the deal with Iran is “far worse than [former President Bill] Clinton’s deal with North Korea.” “If the deal is approved and implemented”, Franks said, “Obama will be remembered as the father of the Iranian nuclear bomb.”
Stop Iran Now rally co-organizer Richard Allen.
Rally co-organizers Richard Allen (L) and Jeff Wiesenfeld led the crowds in chanting, “Where’s Chuck?” & “Kill this deal!”
Former three term governor of NY George Pataki.
George Pataki said opposition to the Iran deal must be bipartisan and all Americans must be united in opposing it, Jews, Christians and Muslims.
Pataki went through the litany of goodies Iran gets out of the deal: the ability to retain its centrifuges, the $150 billion in sanctions relief, its ability to defy inspections, amongst others. “What does America get?” Pataki asked. “We don’t even get our hostages back.”
Prof. (emeritus) Alan Dershowitz, of Harvard Law School
Professor Alan Dershowitz made it very clear that the issue of a nuclear-armed Iran is a bipartisan issue, one that must not be seen as something only Republicans or only Israelis care about. He proudly told the crowd he is a “liberal Democrat.” Dershowitz said he is opposed to this “very, very bad deal,” and he is asking his fellow liberals and Democrats to oppose it also.
As a law professor and one who stood with Obama on many occasions, Dershowitz shocked some of those in the crowd – not because of the content, but because of the messenger – “this rally is a great example of American democracy.” But the process in Washington surrounding this deal “is a distortion of democracy.”
Dershowitz declared that the deal is actually a treaty, and should be presented to the Senate for a two thirds vote. Or, the law professor said, if not a treaty then the deal is a presidential executive agreement, which requires a vote in favor by a simple majority of the House and of the Senate, and not a two-thirds vote against from each house, which is how this deal has been structured.
Although several of the speakers invoked the name of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Dershowitz said he knows Netanyahu well, and “Bibi will not allow Iran to develop a weapon that will destroy Israel.” He finished with a flourish: “Israel has the ability to defend itself, whatever it takes!”
Caroline Glick
. Journalist & author Caroline Glick was the most animated of the speakers. She began with a rousing, “Hello, New York!” And explained that she is from “the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem!” As with many of the other speakers, Glick importuned those in the audience to contact their elected representatives and tell them to defeat the bill.
Glick said there were just two things people really had to know about the deal. First, that it will give the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism $150 billion to use to fund still more terror. “And as my grandmother in Brooklyn would say,” Glick explained, “that’s real money.” “Second, Iran is guaranteed to be able to produce nuclear bombs in ten years, and that’s even if they don’t cheat on this deal.”
“What part of this do you not understand?” Glick asked Congress. “Is there really a question now?” She told them “you must look at this big picture and you know what to do. That is, unless you have no honor and no shame.”
WATCH & HEAR CAROLINE GLICK ON SEVERAL YOUTUBES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCrO2SPsYjI
Stop Iran Now rally co-organizer Lauri B. Regan. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson.
Steve Emerson is considered by many to be one of the leading experts on terrorism. He described the nuclear deal with Iran as perhaps “the worst international agreement in history.”
Other speakers included former Cong. Allen West, CUFI executive director David Brog, Frank Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, national security expert Clare Lopez, Pakistani Muslim and outspoken opponent of Islamic terrorism Kasim Hafeez.
More than three dozen organizations co-sponsored the rally.
About the Author: Lori Lowenthal Marcus is the US correspondent for The Jewish Press. She is a recovered lawyer who previously practiced First Amendment law and taught in Philadelphia-area graduate and law schools. You can reach her by email: Lori@JewishPressOnline.co
2.Watch: Ex-Congressman Allen West Tears into ‘Weakling’ Obama: Https://youtu.be/iaHe9PBnFdAh ?click on YouTube
No holds barred: In fiery, emotional speech, outspoken commentator says what most Americans think of Iran deal, ‘charlatan’ Obama.
By Arutz Sheva Staff IsraelNationalNews.com First Publish: 7/23/2015, 10:10 AM
Outspoken political commentator and former Florida Congressman Allen West pulled no punches yesterday at a mega-rally against the Iran deal, slamming the Obama administration for its agreement with Tehran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
Speaking to at least 10,000 protesters at Wednesday’s mega-rally in New York’s Times Square, West tore into President Obama, deriding him as a “weakling” and a “charlatan,” to enthusiastic applause.
We’ll let the video do the talking – it really is a must-watch:
Other speakers at the Stop Iran Rally spanned the political spectrum, including former New York Republican Governor George Pataki, and senior Democrat Alan Dershowitz.
“We’re here as Americans to speak with one voice to say stop Iran now, reject this deal,” Pataki said.
“This is a God-awful deal, this must be rejected. Congress must do its job and stand up for the American people, stand up for our safety and say no to this Iranian deal,” he added.
Scholar Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, appealed to fellow liberals to side with Republican opposition. “It is a bad deal for Democrats. It is a bad deal for liberals. I am here opposing this deal as a liberal Democrat,” he declared.
He called the deal bad for America, bad for world peace and bad for the security of the Middle East.
Ex-Congressman Allen West Tears into ‘Weakling’ Obama
2.a J Street Ads Target US Congressmen’s Support of Judea, Samaria: J Street has launched a new campaign, insisting Congressmen are “not pro-Israel” if they support Israeli annexation of Judea, Samaria. By Rachel Hirshfeld Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com First Publish: 7/15/2012, 3:19 PM
Allen West in Old City visit
Arutz Sheva courtesy of Rep. West
J Street has launched a new campaign — insisting that congressmen Joe Walsh (R-IL) and Allen West (R-FL) are “not pro-Israel” because they support Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria.
“There is no such thing as a two-state solution, and no such thing as land for peace,” said Walsh, who introduced a resolution last year supporting a proposal that Israel annex Jewish communities located in “disputed territories.”
West, who co-sponsored the resolution, is a staunch supporter of the State of Israel, saying last year that a two-state solution would, essentially, mean the demise of Israel as a Jewish state.
The J Street ads single out the Congressmen’s claims, urging constituents to tell them “the two-state solution preserves Israel’s democracy and its security.”
“Opposing it isn’t pro-Israel. It’s playing with fire,” the ad claims.
“In election after election American Jews have stood by and watched while Members of Congress were attacked for supporting pro-Israel, pro-peace policies,” said J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami. “J Street began changing that dynamic by rising to their defense. In this election, we will take that effort to a new level by calling out Members of Congress, like Walsh and West, who are playing with fire when it comes to Israel.”
“We intend to make it crystal clear that there are, indeed, many ways to be ‘pro-Israel’—but supporting a nightmarish one-state scenario is not one of them,” claimed Ben-Ami.
While J Street prides itself as being “pro-Israel” and “pro-peace,” many, if not most, Jewish constituents believe that the organization actually undermines the interests of the State of Israel and Jewish people. Numerous Jewish leaders and organizations have publicly disassociated themselves, altogether, from J Street’s rhetoric and policies.
Street Ads Target US Congressmen’s Support of Judea, Samaria
3.U.S. entry into new Iran agreement expressly violates American law.
Iran Agreement in International Law & U.S. Law: Contradictions
Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com Published: Thursday, July 23, 2015 4:54 AM
Prof. Louis René Beres, (Ph.D, Princeton, 1971) is emeritus professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. He is the author of many books, monographs, and articles dealing with Israeli security matters, nuclear strategy and nuclear war.
From the particular standpoints of national and international law, there are notably major contradictions within the new Iran agreement that have yet to be recognized. Of these, the most egregious example has to do with core provisions of the agreement that allow Iran to enrich uranium – or effectively “go nuclear” – after 15 years.
These provisions, prima facie, are in stark violation of the 1968 Non Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, notably those treaty portions that already obligate Iran, and all other non-nuclear member states, to remain non-nuclear for the Treaty’s “indefinite duration.”
Correspondingly, it also follows, according to Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, or the “Supremacy Clause,” that U.S. entry into the new Iran agreement expressly violates American law, specifically, the “supreme law of the land.” This country, of course, is a nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT.
A second relevant legal contradiction concerns the Obama administration’s declared unwillingness to base its negotiations with Iran upon a prior or contingent expectation that the country’s leadership renounce its genocidal statements about Israel. This contradiction, too, represents a flagrant U.S. violation of both international and national law, in this case, because the 1948 Genocide Convention criminalizes not only genocide per se, but also “Conspiracy to commit genocide,” and “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide.”
It is certain that the U.S. failed to consider a number of utterly fundamental principles of law in forging its recent Iran nuclear agreement.
Does the United States have any specific “contractual” obligation to enforce such criminalization in its separate nuclear dealings with Iran? Although the precise language of the Genocide Convention does not explicitly require such enforcement, all treaties are premised upon the “peremptory” doctrine of pacta sunt servanda (Latin for “agreements must be honored”). Moreover, a U.S. obligation here is clearly deducible from Article V of the Convention, which calls for international cooperation in providing “effective penalties” for those who have engaged in “incitement to commit genocide,” and from Article VIII, which urges “any contracting party” to bring unlawful behavior before “competent organs of the United Nations.”
Again, there exists a binding intersection of U.S. Constitutional law, and international law. Because of the Supremacy Clause, and also assorted Supreme Court decisions, especially the Paquete Habana (1900), this country’s conspicuous failure to properly enforce anti-genocide norms in its recent nuclear agreement with Iran constitutes a violation of U.S. domestic law. On purely moral grounds, of course, this failure is similarly serious.
A third problem with the new agreement is less a matter of evident jurisprudential contradictions, than it is one of “naive legalism,” of automatically assuming that realistic compliance is simply built into the codifying language. Here, legal philosophy has pride of place, and it is fully appropriate to recall the cautionary words of seventeenth-century English thinker, Thomas Hobbes, a figure whose Leviathan was well-known to Thomas Jefferson, and thereby important to drafting the Declaration of Independence: “And Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.”
To be sure, the new “Covenant” with Iran is “but Words,” and can never expectedly override Tehran’s irremediable preference for creating military nuclear options. Over time, Iran’s cadre of international lawyers will plausibly embark, more-or-less openly, on a calculated strategy of unilateral “treaty” termination. Further to the governing “treaty on treaties,” the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), these Iranian lawyers will settle upon a useful number of “permissible exceptions” to pacta sunt servanda.
These allegedly lawful exceptions will likely include the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus (“so long as conditions remain the same”), a principle stating that the obligations of the nuclear agreement may be terminated whenever a change occurs in those circumstances that existed at the time the agreement had first been executed.
Will such a qualified change actually have taken place? Probably not.
There are other strategies of unilateral termination that Iran could and most likely will invoke, going forward. One of these grounds, identified at Article 48 of the Vienna Convention, says that “A State may invoke an error ….as invalidating its consent….” Another, codified at Article 52, indicates that a formal international agreement is void “if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force….” Still another predictable ground for future Iranian legal manipulation can be found at Article 53, the so-called “Jus Cogens” or peremptory norm section of the Vienna Convention. This article states that “A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.” In this case, Iran could claim, several years hence, that the agreement had improperly impaired its sovereignty – incontestably, a peremptory norm of general international law – and is therefore no longer legally binding.
On its face, any such rationale would appear to contradict elementary logic. After all, Iran had already acknowledged this effect at the time of its initial agreement. Nonetheless, a case could conceivably be fashioned by Iran that would combine this particular rationale with an argument of rebus sic stantibus – that is, that the foreseeable circumstances that had obtained originally, no longer obtain.
Alternatively, at least in the closing years of this agreement, Iran could decide that it would be better to remain in the pact, at least in principle, but to simultaneously quit the NPT. The rationale of such a contrary strategy would be that the newer pact will allow full nuclearization after the fifteen year duration, while the NPT could never make such an allowance. Per Article X of the NPT, Iran’s withdrawal could rest on the permissible argument that continued membership would jeopardize its “supreme interests.”
It could do this by giving “three-months notice.”
Since the seventeenth century and the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, our system of international law has been based more-or-less effectively upon a balance of power. Today, this steadily shifting foundation is essentially unchanged, and all international legal expectations must be regularly examined as part of a much broader political universe. It is certain that the U.S. failed to consider a number of utterly fundamental principles of law in forging its recent Iran nuclear agreement. Equally unassailable is that Iran will eventually pay little heed to this agreement’s core requirements.
LOUIS RENÉ BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and is Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue. His tenth book, Israel’s Nuclear Strategy: Surviving amid Chaos (Rowman and Littlefield) will be published later this year. Dr. Beres was born in Zürich, Switzerland, at the end of World War II.
U.S. entry into new Iran agreement expressly violates American law.
4.Obama & Iran: reason for Aliyah By Tuvia Brodie
Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com 7/22/2015, 8:07 PM
Tuvia Brodie has a PhD from the University of Pittsburgh under the name Philip Brodie. He has worked for the University of Pittsburgh, Chatham College and American Express. He and his wife made aliyah in 2010. All of his children have followed. He believes in Israel’s right to exist. He believes that the words of Tanach (the Jewish Bible) are meant for us. His blog address is http://tuviainil.blogspot.com .
US President Hussein Obama wants you to embrace his Iran deal. He’s so determined to get that embrace, he’s gone on the offensive.
First, he sent his Vice President, Joe Biden, to talk to ‘the Jews’ (Ron Kampeas, “The campaign for (and against) the Iran deal gets personal”, Times of Israel, July 22, 2015). Biden had an ‘intimate’ phone call this past week with about a thousand Jewish leaders to implore them to support the ‘deal’ (ibid).
Obama also sent US Secretary of State John Kerry to America’s talk shows. He wanted Kerry to defend the ‘deal’. Kerry did that. During that defense, Kerry characterized the criticism of the deal by Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as one of the dumbest criticisms he’d ever heard in his life (ibid).
Then, Obama himself went on the road—to Pittsburgh, Pa. He gave a speech there. He denounced those who oppose the deal. He called those people the same ‘chest-beaters’ who had advocated for war with Iraq in 2003 when it was believed—apparently falsely—that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (“Obama denounces ‘chest beating’ against Iran accord”, Times of Israel, July 21, 2015). He called this deal a victory of diplomacy over war (ibid). He said it would save American troops from dying in a fruitless war with Iran (Kampeas, ibid).
Is that why Obama completed this deal—to save the lives of American troops? If so, he’s a fool—or worse.
Iran is eager to develop Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). Why does Iran need such missiles to kill American troops in war? ICBMs generally aren’t designed to be a battle-field weapon.
ICBMs typically have a different application. They’re a weapon designed to help fulfil the chant, ‘Death to America’. Note that ‘America’ is not ‘US troops’. It’s you.
One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand this distinction. But it appears to be a distinction Obama fails to grasp—or chooses to ignore.
His deal appeases an enemy who chants, ‘Death to America’. He says his deal has been done to save American troops. Perhaps that’s true. But his deal also endangers America.
To save American troops, Obama will, as a consequence of this ‘deal’, release more than 150 billion dollars of frozen assets to the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. He does that knowing that the US has open borders in its Southwest.
That’s a problem for America because open borders are an open invitation for terrorists to sneak (or, rather, walk freely) into America carrying whatever they wish to bring with them. 150 billion dollars can buy a lot of back-pack-size C4 explosives. It can buy a lot of untraceable mayhem to be exploded in small-town America all across America’s South, South-West and mid-West.
For that matter, why would a travelling terrorist newly arrived in America from a border-crossing want to stop only in the South, South-West or mid-West? Once inside America, he could use his explosives anywhere.
150+ billion dollars can go a long way. It can fund a lot of terror.
John Kerry thinks that Netanyahu’s criticism of this deal is one of the dumbest things he’s ever heard in his life. That criticism says more about Kerry than it does about Netanyahu.
It says that Kerry chooses to attack Netanyahu ad hominum. That means he attacks the person, not the criticism.
Ad hominum is an interesting device. It’s used to attack a person’s character, usually when one cannot attack that person’s argument. It attempts to dismiss another’s argument based on an irrelevant point.
If the Netanyahu criticism has no basis in fact, why resort to fallacious reasoning? Just recite the facts that support your case. Netanyahu’s intelligence has nothing to do with how good or bad the Iran deal is.
If the best you can do to defend your po?sition is to question Netanyahu’s intelligence, then you’ve just revealed you’ve got a problem: your po?sition is extremely weak. Your po?sition might even be untenable when looked at in the light of day.
Obama, Biden and Kerry are on the same team. That team isn’t honest. It doesn’t use honest reasoning. It’s created a dishonest deal.
That doesn’t help America. It helps America’s enemies.
If you’re a Jew in America, your government is about to release frozen assets to Iran. That release is part of this ‘deal’. Those released assets represent a 150+ billion dollar windfall for the Iranian terror regime.
Since that terror regime is profoundly anti-American and anti-Semitic, that windfall threatens you. If your American leaders so deliberately fund such terror, you no longer live in a safe place.
If you’re an American Jew, here’s a piece of advice: make Aliyah. Do it now–before it’s too late!
Obama & Iran: reason for Aliyah By Tuvia Brodie
5.Are We Going Towards a Post-Israel Middle East? by Giulio Meotti
Are we witnessing the second career of Adolph Hitler?
Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com Published: Thursday, July 23, 2015 5:14 AM
by Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book “A New Shoah”, that researched the personal stories of Israel’s terror victims, published by Encounter and of “J’Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel” published by Mantua Books.. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary.
For 2,000 years, following the annihilation of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Jewish people lived in exile from its holy places, while keeping its religion, language, and customs alive in an unparalleled act of collective memory. No other people in history has experienced so much suffering, or devoted so much energy to remembering.
And when, in the XX century, the greatest of all disasters wiped out the Jews of Europe, the world seemed to undergo a brief fit of remorse. The United Nations voted overwhelmingly to recognize the State of Israel as a homeland in which the Jews could at last protect themselves and to return to their holy places. But as we know, anti-Semitic hate began to rise again, now directed at Israel and its Jewish residents.
When today the siren sounds on Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day, all Israelis stop wherever they are, like statues of sorrow, because the Israelis know that they are the continuation of the Jewry that was cut off in Europe. They are linked by an invisible, magnetic chain that explains to the world why Israel exists.
It is no accident that the siren is the same one that warns Jews to take shelter in case of missile attacks. Where a suicide bomber struck during the Oslo War, the Israeli victims were arranged near the burned-out carcass of the bus. They were placed in black bags, to which were attached a Polaroid photo, a report, and a card with a number.
It was European civilization that died during the Holocaust, swallowing up all of the Jewish communities in its own nothingness.
Like the number assigned to other Jews by the Nazis, who tattooed it on their arms. History always repeats itself.
Now the remorse is over and the world is preparing to accept “a post-Israel Middle East”. A few months ago, Herman Heinsbroek, who served as the Netherlands’ minister of economic affairs in 2002, said that world peace would be achievable if Israel’s population was forced to move to the United States. This perfectly sums up the world’s dominant feeling about Israel.
Israel is a tiny country—a jet can fly from one end to the other in two minutes. It can be destroyed. That is why the “blame Israel” approach to Middle Eastern politics is now the semi-official attitude of the European Union. This is why Obama abandoned Israel to its enemies. This is why the United Nations’ bodies are trying to incriminate the Israeli Jews for “war crimes”. They are preparing the ground for the ultimate charter in Jewish history.
We are also seeing the same feeble-minded appeasement that allowed anti-Semitism to triumph in Europe under Hitler. There were 16 million Jews in the world before Nazism; now there are 13 million. We are still in the process of recovering from that catastrophe. They rightly called it “the Final Solution of the Jewish Question”.
However, the extinction of European Judaism took place amid the disappearance of European culture. It was European civilization that died during the Holocaust, swallowing up all of the Jewish communities in its own nothingness.
This is the second career of Adolf Hitler: the Hitlerian cancer has been extirpated over and over by surgeons so thorough that they got rid not only of the tumor, which was very necessary, but of all the vital functions as well. The patient is alive, but he is dead. He has no heart, no brain, no stomach, no nerve, no sex, no pride, no reaction of any sort. Today, Europe’s only passion is hate for Israel.
Today in the West we see the same faulty and failed conscience as we evidenced during the Holocaust: indifference to the parade of Palestinians putting on explosive belts, the daily demonization inflicted on Jews in the Islamic world, the crowds delirious over the lynching of three young Jewish “settlers” in Gush Etzion.
The birth of Israel is the only political event worthy of joy, hope, and gratitude in a century that became a slaughterhouse to hundreds of millions of human beings, because Israel and those 13 million Jews who insist on living in this world despite the gas chambers and the terrorism are the essence of liberty. Let us hope the West will awake to its duty toward the Jews, whose vigil down the centuries has been an example to us all.
Israel is in danger.
Are We Going Towards a Post-Israel Middle East? by Giulio Meotti
I admit it.
I am confused.
I read this and have become time-unhinged:
Located in the “occupied Palestinian territories”, Khirbet Susiya is in Area C under full Israeli control and squeezed between two settlements – Susiya settlement – and an archaeological site run by settlers.
An archaeological site becomes a “settlement” because “settlers” run it?
Let’s be clear: the village of Susya/Sussia was founded probably in the 3rd century. The structures conform exactly to Halachic strictures regarding customs of Jewish ritual purity.
However, if anti-Zionist/pro-Palestinians insist upon using the term “settlement” even in this case, when a Jewish village predated Arab towns by 400 years or more, then all Arab residential locations must be termed “settlements” as well.
There should be no confusion in this semantic battle.
Yes, Fatima, there are Arab settlements.
P.S. But there are no Jewish “settlers”. We’re “revenants”. [From the French word: meaning “returnees”.]
‘Settlement’ Confusion By Yisrael Medad
CITIZEN WARRIOR
Our goal is to oppose Islamization by exposing, marginalizing, and disempowering orthodox Islam.
8.The Glazov Gang Exposes Islam WEDNESDAY July 22, 2015 
If you haven’t tuned into The Glazov Gangon YouTube, we recommend it. The inimitable Jamie Glazov is out to expose Islam for what it is. Just to give you an idea of what transpires on his show, here are a few recent episodes:
Choudary, Ibrahim and Hodge Battle it Out Over ISIS and Islam. A heated verbal brawl breaks out over whether Islamic theology inspires Islamic terror (watch video).
Creepy Way Muslims Lure American Girls to Join ISIS. The show was joined by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center (watch video).
Islam’s Rape of Sweden. The show was joined by Ingrid Carlqvist, the Editor-in-Chief of Dispatch-International.com. She shines a frightening light on the Muslim terror that has maimed her country (watch video).
Ex-Muslim Mona Walter: Rescuing Muslims from Islam. A courageous Christian convert from Islam shares her mission to help Muslims break the chains that bind them (watch video).
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang’s YouTube Channel here.
9.The John Kerry Comedy Hour by Jack Engelhard
Kerry’s negotiations are a tragicomedy, but no one is laughing.
Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com Published: Thursday, July 23, 2015 5:07 AM
Jack Engelhard’s classic international bestselling novel Indecent Proposal, which later became a worldwide hit movie, has been republished to meet readers’ demands. His other major works include Compulsive: A Novel, his award-winning post-Holocaust Montreal memoir Escape from Mount Moriah, plus Slot Attendant: A Novel About A Novelist. His website: www.jackengelhard.com.
Given John Kerry’s flawless performance in Tehran – he never won a single hand – this must be said in his favor: he is no hustler.
Casinos don’t lock their doors when they see him coming. In fact they open their doors wider for such suckers. At the Poker Table he is not known as Slick Willie. In fact the boys all smile when they see him coming and have a chair ready for him. “Please,” they say. “Join us.”
If he counts cards at Blackjack he counts them in favor of the House.
The man can’t win at anything. They love him.
In Pool Rooms he is not known as Minnesota Fats. “Grab a stick,” say the Sharps. “We’ve been waiting for you.”
Despite his poker face, they know him as a sap, a loser who arrives by limo but needs to toss pennies for a Greyhound ride back home.
The man can’t win at anything. They love him.
They love him in Iran and they love him in Europe. He can be counted on to lose all his chips.
From Monte Carlo through Las Vegas to Atlantic City they keep inviting him to join their tournaments and to please arrive flushed with American cash. Rooms, meals, entertainment – everything comped so long as he joins them at their tables where they know he will always bet wrong.
That’s especially the case after his performance against Iran’s ayatollahs where they hung him out to dry.
He did not win a single wager. So we must imagine the Nuke negotiations as follows:
John: I insist that inspectors be allowed in at any time, without advance warning.
The Ayatollahs: No.
John: Okay. Okay. Sorry I brought it up.
The Ayatollahs: Are we done?
John: “Well, if you don’t mind my mentioning – can you please stop subsidizing terrorists throughout the world?”
The Ayatollahs: Are you nuts? This is what we do. Understand?
John: Understood.
The Ayatollahs: Are we done? Because we’re rushed to join the Death to Israel and Death to America rally. It’s Monday.
John: Glad you brought that up. Can you possibly let up on that since we’re lifting economic sanctions? That’s $150 billion to you.
The Ayatollahs: Are you kidding? Those Death chants, that is our baseball. That is our Mom and Apple Pie. Are we done?
John: Not quite. As part of this deal, at which I’m lifting not only the Nuke embargo…
The Ayatollahs: Very generous of you. We pray for Americans like you. You must come more often. Bring friends. We have more bargains.
John: But we also lifted the conventional weapons embargo…
The Ayatollahs: You can be sure we will repay your magnanimity. Just watch us pay you back, and sooner than you think, my friend.
John: So with all that, would it be too much to ask…
The Ayatollahs: Now don’t get pushy on us, John. What do you want and be quick?
John: The four hostages. Can we please have them back? I can’t go home empty-handed. People will say I’m a fool.
The Ayatollahs: No and yes.
From: Jack Engelhard
Op-Ed: The John Kerry Comedy Hour by Jack Engelhard
10.Deal worse than we could have imagined by Charles Krauthammer
Posted: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:30 pm
WASHINGTON — When you write a column, as did I two weeks ago, headlined “The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history,” you don’t expect to revisit the issue. We had hit bottom. Or so I thought. Then last week the final terms of the Iranian nuclear deal were published. I was wrong.
Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?
When asked at last week’s news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the four American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.
Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?
Because Iran, joined by Russia — our “reset” partner — sprung the demand at the last minute, calculating that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they would cave. They did. And have convinced themselves that they scored a victory by delaying the lifting by five to eight years. (Ostensibly. The language is murky. The interval could be considerably shorter.)
Obama claimed in his news conference that it really doesn’t matter because we can always intercept Iranian arms shipments to, say, Hezb’Allah.
But wait. Obama has insisted throughout that we are pursuing this Iranian diplomacy to avoid the use of force, yet now blithely discards a previous diplomatic achievement — the arms embargo — by suggesting, no matter, we can just shoot our way to interdiction.
Moreover, the most serious issue is not Iranian exports but Iranian imports — of sophisticated Russian and Chinese weapons. These are untouchable. We are not going to attack Russian and Chinese transports.
The net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Imagine how Iran’s acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half-century.
The other major shock in the final deal is what happened to our insistence on “anytime, anywhere” inspections. Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny international inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then adjudicated by a committee — on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if the inspectors’ request prevails, the approval process can take 24 days.
And what do you think will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is farcical.
The action now shifts to Congress. The debate is being hailed as momentous. It is not. It’s irrelevant.
Congress won’t get to vote on the deal until September. But Obama is taking the agreement to the U.N. Security Council for approval within days. Approval there will cancel all previous U.N. resolutions outlawing and sanctioning Iran’s nuclear activities.
Meaning: Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won’t matter because the legal under-pinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran will have been dismantled at the Security Council. Ten years of painstakingly constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight, irretrievably.
Even if Congress rejects the agreement, do you think the Europeans, the Chinese or the Russians will reinstate sanctions? The result: The United States is left isolated while the rest of the world does thriving business with Iran.
Should Congress then give up? No. Congress needs to act in order to rob this deal of, at least, its domestic legitimacy. Rejection will make little difference on the ground. But it will make it easier for a successor president to legitimately reconsider an executive agreement (Obama dare not call it a treaty — it would be instantly rejected by the Senate) that garnered such pathetically little backing in either house of Congress.
It’s a future hope, but amid dire circumstances. By then, Iran will be flush with cash, legitimized as a normal international actor in good standing, recognized (as Obama once said) as “a very successful regional power.” Stopping Iran from going nuclear at that point will be infinitely more difficult and risky.
Which is Obama’s triumph. He has locked in his folly. He has laid down his legacy and we will have to live with the consequences for decades.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Deal is worse than we could have imagined by Charles Krauthammer
11.Arlene Kushner “THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE” July 21, 2015
It is Obama himself who has primary responsibility for having moved – traitorously – to empower a dangerous and radical terrorist entity (and more on this below).
But Obama doesn’t operate in a vacuum: Those members of Congress who truly know better, but hesitate to stand up to him (because as Democrats they believe they must ally themselves with a Democratic president or for other political reasons) certainly also have responsibility for the current situation.
And lastly, there are those American citizens who also know better, but have been too busy with their own lives, or too apathetic, to stand up and make their voices heard. The United States is a democracy, and so the people must assume a measure of responsibility. There is much to be done – and no time to be lost! Elected representatives in Congress must hear from their constituents, calling for a resolute stand against the accord with Iran. They must know that they will be held accountable for what transpires.
America, my friends, has lost her way. I do not write this lightly. I grieve. Lose sleep. But I face the reality. And so must each of you.
The reality is that only the people of America can redeem the situation, which has gone beyond horrendous.
Only the people can instill in hesitant members of Congress the motivation to act, when they are focused on what they perceive to be politically expedient. They must understand what is expected of them – starting, but not ending, with a vote against the Iran accords.
As for those elected representatives who have had the courage to stand up, they must be supported and encouraged: They must be urged on to ever greater strength and acts of leadership.
Please, share this with everyone you know, and in every possible venue – on FB, on websites, on discussion group lists. Now. Because if you decide to do it later, you run the risk of forgetting to do it at all.
Contact your Senators. Locate them here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Contact your Congresspersons. Locate them here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Emails work. Phone calls are much better. Go for it. Now. Because if you put it off for later, you may forget.
Keep your communication short and polite, but deliver a message that is strong and clear.
I want to urge everyone living in New York to contact Senator Chuck Schumer: http://www.schumer.senate.gov/. I have read several reports indicating that he may be waffling on his challenge to Obama. Let him hear from you.
I have previously mentioned EMET, which is working hard at lobbying Congress. Here I also want to note AIPAC, the largest lobby group for Israel – which is working overtime to deliver the message to Congress about the dangers of the Iran deal.
Weep for this, my friends, and then let your elected representatives in Congress know that they must not give up. That you expect better of them.
You might also like to see Jennifer Rubin on 17 ridiculous things the president said at the Iran news conference. Her counter to Obama’s major misrepresentations is helpful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/15/17-ridiculous-things-the-president-said-at-the-iran-news-conference/
There are matters I did not get to today, which will keep for yet another time. I want to close here with analysis by Omri Ceren of The Israel Project. Along with Krauthammer’s column, what Ceren tells us is the stuff of nightmares (emphasis added):
“[The political debate] is about how dropping the arms embargo will enable Iran to push the U.S. out of the Gulf, about how giving the Iranians $150 billion will bolster their terror and military programs, about how putting Iran on a 10 year glidepath to zero breakout will trigger Sunni nuclear proliferation, about how coziness between the Obama administration and Iran has detonated American alliances in the region, about how an economically resurgent Iran will become a hostile regional hegemon, and so on. The criticism is that even if the deal successfully prevents Iran from building a nuclear weapon for 10 years, the Obama administration will be funding and boosting Iran’s conventional military capabilities.
“The JCPOA introduces an additional wrinkle… The agreement commits the international community to actively helping Iran perfect its nuclear program over the life of the deal (!) On a policy level, it means Iran’s breakout time will be constantly shrinking. On a political level, it means that the deal will be seen as accomplishing the exact opposite of what the Obama administration promised Congress: instead of rolling back Iran’s nuclear program, it will commit the U.S. and its allies to funding and boosting it.”
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution. If it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be noted. See my website at www.arlenefromisrael.info Contact Arlene at akushner18@gmail.com
Arlene Kushner “THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE” July 21, 2015
12.Arlene Kushner “AN ENDLESS LITANY” July 22, 2015 I have been trying to provide you, my readers, with sufficient solid information on the Iran deal so that you can grasp its horrors – without overwhelming you with enormous technical minutiae, which can make the head spin. However, every time I think I have provided enough, some other fact is exposed that simply must be written about. And here we are again today. Here, once more, we have Omri Ceren of The Israel Project, who cites BBC: “Zarif said that restriction on Iran’s missile programme has been removed from Chapter 7 of UN Resolution 1929 and ‘has turned into a non-binding restriction.’” And, says Ceren, “he’s absolutely right about how the new United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR)…turns what used to be a total ban on ballistic missile development into a ‘non-binding restriction.’” (“Emphasis added here and following) “Here is the now-outdated UNSCR 1929, which used mandatory language that ‘Iran shall not undertake’: ‘Decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities;’ “Here is the new UNSCR 2231, which uses non-binding language that ‘Iran is called upon not to undertake’: ‘Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.’” Try to wrap your heads around this, my friends. It was already a disaster that Obama went along with removing the UN sanctions against Iranian use of ballistic missiles. The point has been made repeatedly that this should not have been part of the deal at all, because the negotiations were about nuclear development not conventional weapons. In the end, Obama tried to soften this by representing it as a victory because there was an eight-year delay in Iran’s ability to use ballistic missiles. But as it turns out, this is a lie. Iran just may have the leeway to start now. ZOA (Zionist Organization of America) picked up similarly hedged wording yesterday. In a press release, ZOA asks, “Deal Repeatedly Refers to Iran’s ‘Voluntary Measures.’ Does Iran Have No Real Obligations?” (emphasis added):
”Virtually every treaty and agreement contains language clearly binding the parties to definitive terms, such as ‘the parties agree to the following terms.’ However, the Iran deal – formally called the ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action’ (or JCPOA) – is different. Strangely, supposed obligations are merely called ‘voluntary measures.’ “It is frightening and of great concern that even the minimal supposed obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran in this disastrous, lopsided deal may not be binding on Iran. “Right at the outset, the introduction to the Iran deal’s provisions calls these provisions ‘voluntary measures.’ At the end of the introductory ‘Preamble and General Provisions,’ which is immediately prior to key Section A (entitled ‘Nuclear’), the JCPOA states: “’Iran and E3/EU-3 [that is, P5 + 1] will take the following voluntary measures’ within the timeframe as detailed in this JCPOA and its Annexes. “The phrase ‘voluntary measures’ is also repeated elsewhere in the JCPOA…. “The JCPOA also uses the terms Iran’s ‘intention’ and ‘plan’ and ‘voluntary commitments’ in other key paragraphs. ‘Intentions’ and ‘plans’ and “voluntary commitments” do not have the force of binding agreements. For instance: “The very title of the deal, “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” – merely indicates a plan – not a binding agreement. The term JCPOA is used throughout. http://zoa.org/2015/07/10291044-zoa-deal-repeatedly-refers-to-irans-voluntary-measures-does-iran-have-no-real-obligations/ I have the feeling that this whole fiasco is imploding. What P5 + 1 has is not a “deal” with Iran, a binding accord, but a whole lot of words that sound technical but are merely cover to present to the world, while allowing Iran to do pretty much as it pleases. And Iran is not even pretending to be conciliatory – not playing the game. Yesterday, for the first time, Kerry alluded to the hostile tone of the statements of Iranian leaders, and declared himself bewildered: “I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said, referring to a recent statement by Khaminei that “Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant US will not change.” “It’s very disturbing,” admitted Kerry. Well…hello? Then we have the comment yesterday by Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, Commander of Iran’s paramilitary Basij Force, that, “Any Iranian who reads the Vienna documents will hate the US 100 times more…All paragraphs of the resolution that the US proposed to the UNSC are full of enmity towards Iran and show the US deep grudge against the Iranian nation.” http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198456#.Va-IcZsVjIU Obama and Kerry have shown endless readiness to make concessions to Iran, likely assuming that this would bring them closer to Iranian officials, in a spirit of goodwill. But here is the lesson, writ bold: Concessions made in the Persian bazaar invite contempt, not gratitude. Big concessions yield huge contempt. Will Congress tolerate this attitude? The American people? I want to remind one and all to contact their elected members of Congress, if they have not done so yet, and to attend a “Stop Iran” rally, if possible. More information follows below. In speaking with your Congresspersons and Senators, or their aides, remind them that the Founders of the United States envisioned three branches to the government, so that there would be checks and balances. If the elected officials on Capitol Hill merely cave to what the man in the White House wants, they are failing to fulfill their responsibilities as outlined in the Constitution. If America is to stay strong, this cannot be allowed to happen. Carolyn Glick, in her column today, expresses the opinion that it may be possible for Congress to kill the Iran deal. What she writes ties directly to the issues I’ve been raising (emphasis added): ”As far as the Obama administration is concerned, now that the UN Security Council has anchored the agreement in a binding resolution and so given the force of international law to a deal that guarantees Iran will receives the bomb and $150b., the deal is done. It cannot be walked back.
”But this is not necessarily true. Congress may have more power than it realizes to kill the deal before Iran gets the money and before its other provisions are implemented.
”Over the months leading up to the conclusion of negotiations last Tuesday, Obama refused to acknowledge that he was negotiating a treaty. Rather he said it was nothing more than an executive agreement.
”Consequently, he argued, the US Senate’s sole authority to ratify treaties by two-thirds majority would be inapplicable to the deal with Iran.
”Obama also said he would further sideline Congress by anchoring the deal in a binding UN Security Council resolution. This resolution would force Obama’s successor to uphold the deal after he leaves office. [The UNSC voted unanimously to do that.]
”Obama mitigated his position slightly when Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, drafted the Corker-Cardin bill with veto-proof majorities in both houses. The bill, which Obama reluctantly signed into law, requires Obama to submit the deal to an up or down vote in both houses. If more than two thirds of Senators and Congressmen oppose it, then the US will not abrogate its unilateral sanctions against Iran.
”In other words, Obama agreed that if Congress turned the Constitution on its head by replacing the two-thirds Senate majority required to approve a treaty with a two-thirds bicameral majority necessary to disapprove his executive agreement – then he wouldn’t go to the Security Council until after Congress voted.
”When Obama betrayed his pledge and went to the Security Council on Monday, he gave Congress an opening to reconsider its position, ditch the restrictive Corker-Cardin law and reassert the Senate’s treaty approving authority.
”As former US federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy argued in National Review last week, by among other things canceling the weapons and missile embargoes on Iran, the six-power deal with Iran went well beyond the scope of the Corker-Cardin law, which dealt only with nuclear sanctions relief. As a consequence, Congress can claim that there is no reason to invoke it.
”Rather than invoke Corker-Cardin, Congress can pass a joint resolution determining that the deal with Iran is a treaty and announce that pursuant to the US Constitution, the Senate will schedule a vote on it within 30 days. Alternatively, Congress can condition the Iran deal’s legal stature on the passage of enabling legislation – that requires simple majorities in both houses.
”Dan Darling, foreign policy adviser to Republican Senator and presidential hopeful Rand Paul wrote Monday that senators can use Senate procedure to force the Foreign Relations Committee to act in this manner. Darling argued that House Speaker John Boehner can either refuse to consider the deal since it is a treaty, or insist on passing enabling legislation under normal legislative procedures.
”Monday Netanyahu explained that by keeping US sanctions in force, Congress can limit Iran’s capacity to move beyond the current sanctions regime even after it is canceled. Every state and firm considering business opportunities with Tehran will have to weigh them against the opportunity cost of being barred from doing business with the US.
”Iran for its part may walk away from the deal entirely if Congress acts in this manner. If it does, then the US will not be obligated by any of the deal’s requirements. The continued viability of the Security Council resolution will be something for the lawyers to argue over.
”The devil in Obama’s deal with Iran is not in the mind-numbing details, but in the big picture. The deal guarantees Iran will get the bomb. It gives the Iranian regime $150b.
”To secure these concessions, Obama has trampled congressional authority. ”If the American people think this doesn’t advance their national interest, they should encourage their congressional representatives to ditch Corker-Cardin and use their full authority, as a co-equal branch of the government, to scupper it.” http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/How-and-why-to-kill-the-deal-409725 Credit: CarolineGlick I have asked New Yorkers to contact their Senator Chuck Schumer, and urge him to oppose the Iran deal. Now I have acquired phone numbers, to simplify the process for you: New York: 212-486-4430 Washington, D.C.: 202-224-6542 There are two rallies scheduled in California for Sunday, which is Tisha B’Av: Los Angeles: July 26, 2015, 2:00-4:00pm at Federal Building (Veteran & Wilshire) San Diego: July 26, 2015, 2:00-4:00 pm at Balboa Park (Park Boulevard & President`s Way Lawn) I was particularly glad to share information today that had been put out by ZOA, for yesterday I mentioned EMET and AIPAC, which are both doing lobbying on the Hill with regard to the Iran deal, and inadvertently left out ZOA, which has been doing this work of lobbying on behalf of Israel longer than either of the other organizations. For this omission – startling because my co-chair in Legal Grounds Campaign is Jeff Daube, who heads the ZOA office in Israel – I sentenced myself to ten lashes with a wet noodle. I close here with two items that are more upbeat in perspective: Here we have Shabtai Shavit, who was director of the Mossad director from 1989 to 1996, voicing the opinion that the current situation brings with it the possibility of enhanced relationships with the Sunni Arab states of the region – notably Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt. “I believe that in the present time there is a window of opportunity for Israel in order to try and pursue a new order in the Middle East.” He’s not the only one saying this. Perhaps a glimpse of a silver lining in the morass we must currently contend with. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-nuclear-deal-opens-window-for-Israel-to-join-new-Mideast-order-409462 And then, a most interesting perspective from Shoshana Bryen, who is currently Senior Director of the Israel Policy Center, and formerly served as Senior Director for Security Policy at JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs). This is “Israel: 14.Security Asset for the United States” “…there is a reason military-to-military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel has remained almost untouchable, and the American military proudly touts its relationship with Israel. “With the President of the United States behaving as if Iran can be an ally and a pro-Western player, it might help to recall the ‘quick reference guide’ to the capabilities Israel brings to U.S.-Israel security cooperation, first published by JINSA in 1979…” I am not going to reproduce the entire list here, but suggest you look at it. It will boost your morale. Included are such items as: - A secure location in a crucial part of the world
- A well-developed military infrastructure
- The ability to maintain, service, and repair U.S.-origin equipment
- Multilingual capabilities, including facility in English, Arabic, French, Farsi and the languages of the (former) Soviet Union
- Combat familiarity with Soviet/Russian style tactics and equipment
- The ability to assist U.S. naval fleets, including common equipment
- The ability to support American operations and to provide emergency air cover
Noting that “In 1996, R&D capabilities and intelligence cooperation were added. Post 9-11, urban counterterror training was added….Nothing has been deleted,” Bryen shares something she wrote in 20016: “In a volatile region so vital to the U.S., where other states cannot be relied upon, it would be foolish to disengage — or denigrate — an ally such as Israel. The war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them will be long and hard, and success will depend in no small measure on the allies who stand with us and with whom we stand.” She says “the message is better yet in 2015.” http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6178/israel-us-security-asset 
Credit; steelonsteel© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution. If it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be noted. See my website at www.arlenefromisrael.info Contact Arlene at akushner18@gmail.com Arlene Kushner “AN ENDLESS LITANY” July 22, 2015 | | |
|