WarSclerotic

‘Israel, US to stage large-scale military drill when Iran nuclear deal expires’ | JPost | Israel News.

By JPOST.COM STAFF

11/28/2013 07:05

Time: Planned exercise signals to Iran that West is keeping military option alive should the need arise to deny the Islamic Republic a nuclear bomb.

Israel and the United States will stage a large-scale military exercise toward the end of the six-month period in which the interim agreement between the P5+1 powers and Iran takes effect, Time magazine reported on Thursday.

The drill is intended to signal to the Iranians that while the West may prefer diplomacy to solve the nuclear stalemate, it is still keeping the military option alive should the need arise to use force in order to deny the Islamic Republic a nuclear weapons capability.

“[The exercise] is going to be big,” an Israeli officer told Time magazine. “The wind from the Americans into the Israeli sails is, ‘We will maintain our capability to strike in Iran, and one of the ways we show it is to train. It will send signals both to Israel and to the Iranians that we are maintaining our capabilities in the military option. The atmosphere is we have to do it big time, we have to do a big show of capabilities and connections.”

According to Time, the Israeli government has taken a “strategic decision to continue to make noise,” the source said.

Amid sharp disagreements between Jerusalem and Washington over the Iranian issue, US Secretary of State John Kerry will arrive next week to talk with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu about those matters.

Kerry, who will leave next Tuesday for Brussels and Moldova, will then fly to Israel for meetings with Netanyahu in Jerusalem and with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.

Kerry was last in the region some three weeks ago, when deep divisions with Netanyahu emerged both over the Iranian issue as well as on the Palestinian one.

His visit will come days after France and Britain sent over their top negotiators with Iran, Jacques Audibert and Simon Gass, to brief Israeli officials on the just-concluded Geneva interim agreement, as well as to discuss the parameters of a possible comprehensive agreement.

The accord signed Sunday morning restrains Iran’s nuclear program for six months, in exchange for some sanctions relief. During this six-month period the P5+1 – the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany – will negotiate with Iran in the hopes of reaching a comprehensive agreement.

Israel and the P5+1 have indicated a desire to “engage” closely with one another during this period.

Gass, who arrived Wednesday, said the purpose was to “continue our close consultation with Israel on the Iranian dossier.” He held talks with Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz in the morning and with Foreign Ministry officials in the afternoon.

He said that Britain “always had a very close and friendly dialogue with Israel over Iran, which we recognize as a core security interest for Israel.”

He characterized the talks with Steinitz as “good,” and said there were some elements in the agreement that both recognized as good, and “some we disagreed on.”

Now, he said, “we need to focus on the road ahead.”

Steinitz issued a statement after the meeting, which included representatives from the different intelligence branches, saying that the sides discussed in detail different elements of the Geneva agreement, and started preliminary discussions on the comprehensive accord.

Gass, who served as Britain’s ambassador to Tehran from 2009- 2011, said that his government was “confident” this was a good first-step agreement and that under its terms Iran’s nuclear program will not be able to move forward.

Addressing one of Israel’s primary concerns about the agreement – that it will mark the beginning of the end of the sanctions regime that finally got Iran to budge – Gass said that while Iran received “modest sanctions relief, the core sanctions on oil and gas and financial transactions remain in place.”

Those sanctions will act as a strong incentive for Iran to continue toward a comprehensive solution, he said, adding that Britain will work to ensure the sanctions regime is “policed and enforced tightly.”

Gass said that when British Foreign Secretary William Hague spoke out in favor of the interim Geneva accord on Iran during a speech to the British parliament on Monday, he did not intend to threaten Israel, and that his words were misinterpreted.

Gass said that in Britain’s view, the Geneva accord was a “good agreement,” and Hague was merely expressing his hope that countries with reservations will still work to move forward to play a constructive role in enabling a comprehensive agreement.

On Monday, Hague said, “We would discourage anybody in the world, including Israel, from taking any steps that would undermine this agreement and we will make that very clear to all concerned.”

Iran, meanwhile, made clear it would pursue construction at the Arak heavy-water reactor, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted as saying on Wednesday.

According to the agreed text, Iran said it would not make “any further advances of its activities” on the Arak reactor, under construction near a western Iranian town with that name.

“Capacity at the Arak site is not going to increase. It means no new nuclear fuel will be produced and no new installations will be installed, but construction will continue there,” Zarif told parliament in translated comments broadcasted on Iran’s Press TV.

Gass said that there were a number of controls in the agreement to prevent the Iranians from using the facility to open a plutonium route to a bomb. These controls included an Iranian agreement not to produce nuclear fuel or install it at the reactor, as well as “tough and intrusive monitoring arrangements” there to ensure they abide by the agreement.

Herb Keinon contributed to this story.

Israel Hayom | Is the Iran deal really a deal at all?.

Elliot Abrams

There are many arguments today about the substance of the agreement between Iran and the P5+1. But there is a prior question: Is there really an agreement at all?

Looking at the text of the “agreement,” the most striking thing is the conditional or aspirational language:

“The goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. … This comprehensive solution would build on these initial measures. … There would be additional steps in between the initial measures and the final step. … This comprehensive solution would involve a reciprocal, step-by-step process. …”

Would, would, would. Not “shall.”

The White House fact sheet on the “agreement” says: “Today, the P5+1 and Iran reached a set of initial understandings. …”

But the White House text keeps saying “will,” not would. It does seem, at a minimum, that the “agreement” reached in Geneva is not self-executing and will next require negotiation of an implementation agreement. The text of the agreement says that “The E3+3 and Iran will be responsible for conclusion and implementation of mutual near-term measures. …” But the need for “conclusion” of near-term measures suggests that the “near-term measures” are not actually yet agreed.

The Obama administration should clarify whether that is or is not the case, because the entire “agreement” can be hung up over that negotiation over implementation. The “agreement” does not appear to be binding on any party, which is convenient for the Obama administration in one way: No one can argue that it is a form of treaty that must be approved by the Senate.

But what is this beast? Is it a binding agreement at all? An “Executive Agreement?” An expression of intent? Given the difficulty ahead in getting Iran to comply with any promises it has made, the exact nature of those promises is worth defining.

Tough decisions | Jerusalem Post – Blogs.

Ira Sharkansky

The best feature of the Iran deal–and maybe its only good feature–is that there is a deal, showing that the Iranians are willing to deal.

The weakest points from an Israeli perspective are the Iranians, the US administration, and the UN agency charged with inspection, none of which are particularly trustworthy.

Some may object to an Israeli perspective. Primary for Americans, Europeans, Russians, and Chinese is what is good for them. Yet an Israeli perspective is legitimate in itself, especially for Israelis, and in this context may claim wider legitimacy. Remember Iranians at the very top of that country saying that Israel has no legitimate right to exist.

The combination of that bombast, plus Shiite aggressiveness and the prospect of atomic weapons is more than enough justification for worry, and for action if Israelis decide to act.

Among the worries are different assertions of what is in and what is not in the agreement, and that elements included in the English version do not appear in the Farsi.

The deal does not restrain the Iranians from continuing to develop missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and America.

There is also a misleading American sales pitch that sanctions remaining in place prohibit firms from doing business with Iran.

That does not square with the news that the deal frees as much as $7b for Iran to use now. If American and European firms cannot legally deal with them, the Chinese, Russians, and South Koreans may find their way, perhaps serving also as way stations for European and American companies.

Commentators attributed an initial spike in the NYSE on the first day of business after the signing to investor optimism about the deal. Some are calculating what Americans can expect by way of a drop in gasoline prices.

For Israelis, Americans’ fascination with the price of gas tell us how easy it is to abandon  us. Are we worth as much as a dollar a gallon?
The deal is for six months, may be extended, and leaves some tough bargaining about anything more complete. We can expect some static about this deal not closing all it was supposed to close, and assertions that it is natural to expect internal Iranian problems of communications and administration.
Given the Iranian record, we should also expect to hear about hidden facilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a sloppy record of inspection and reporting. It overlooked for years what Iran and Syria were building.

North Korea must also affect our judgment.
Alan Dershowitz says that Obama made a “cataclysmic error of gigantic proportions. . .  (and that Israel) has the absolute right to prevent a country that has threatened its destruction from developing nuclear weapons . . . That’s a right in law, it’s a right in morality, and it’s a right in diplomacy.”

The British Foreign Minister has warned Israel not to take the law into its own hands. Obama has said that Israel has a right to be suspicious, but he is praising himself for choosing diplomacy over force. He promises to consult with Israel about the final agreement with Iran.

The Americans have announced that they will provide Israel with advanced weaponry. Currently there are military exercises involving Israel, the US, Greece, and Italy.

With all the bads and goods, should we expect any better from this White House on Iran than the Americans are getting from Obamacare?

There is also a stalemate with the European Union that may cost Israel some 300 million euros for research grants and investments if it does not accept EU dictates about facilities over the 1967 borders.

In this season of Hanukah, we have heard from Israelis and overseas Jews that it is a time to be bold, and support Benyamin Netanyahu in his role as the present day leader of a Maccabean army.

That is nice symbolism, but we should remember that the Maccabeans turned bad after a few years.

It would be most heroic to send the planes eastward, tell the Europeans to stuff their euros, end European and American aspirations by annexing the West Bank, tell Mahmoud Abbas to behave himself in Ramallah and John Kerry to stay in Washington.

The day after all that we could celebrate.

The day after the party would be difficult.

Remember the prime lesson of politics. Every day you have to eat something smelly.

But how much?

Is it better to exercise the care appropriate for a small country with limited power, and to weigh carefully the costs and benefits known and unknown, or to choose heroism fueled by religious legend.

It ain’t easy…

The world from here: Israel’s public diplomacy is crucial on Iran deal | JPost | Israel News.

By DAN DIKER

In the aftermath of the interim deal between the Iranian regime and the P5 + 1, the dissonance between the smiles on the faces of Iranian and Western negotiators and the frowns of concern of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and senior Israeli cabinet ministers reflect the magnitude of Israel’s challenge over the next six months.

Netanyahu told his Likud faction on November 25 regarding a possible final agreement with Iran that “This accord must bring about one outcome: the dismantling of Iran’s military nuclear capability,” while reiterating that “Israel will not allow Iran to gain a military nuclear capability.” This restated Israeli red line will have to be supported by a first-rate public diplomacy effort.

As simple as the interim deal sounds to some, its numerous components and the technical aspects of Iranian uranium enrichment and nuclear military development leave much room for confusion among international lawmakers, opinion shapers and publics as to the dangers of the Iranian “nuclear puzzle.” While second nature to Israeli officials, many in the international community, from diplomats to shapers of public opinion, are unclear on distinctions and relative dangers among spinning centrifuges, dangers of various levels of uranium enrichment, levels of plutonium in Arak’s heavy water reactor, weaponization and ballistic development.

The Iranian regime has also proven itself a strong public diplomacy player.

President Hassan Rouhani’s “smile offensive” won over adherents. Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif’s sophisticated You- Tube and Twitter campaigns, in which he asked all countries and particularly his negotiating partners in Geneva to trust the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program, also won Western support.

The Iranians have also understood that good messengers are necessary but insufficient as part of an overall public diplomacy offensive. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Basij paramilitary forces have reportedly created a cyberspace council that has launched online “cyber battalions” that engage in pro-regime public diplomacy campaigns, as well as removal of anti-regime content.

Grand Ayatollah’s Khamenei insult to America and delegitimization of Israel on the eve of the accords signing when he said, “those heads of the Zionist regime, who are really like wild animals that can’t be called human” was a sophisticated soft power “punch” meant to weaken Western negotiators and corner Israel. Former United States UN ambassador John Bolton, writing in the Weekly Standard, urged the Netanyahu government “not to fall prey to the psychological warfare successfully waged so far by the ayatollahs.”

Notwithstanding their recent success, the Iranian regime may still become Israel’s best ally in undermining the interim nuclear deal. Former UN ambassador and Iran expert Dore Gold told The Wall Street Journal that “We are going to see Iran do what it has done in the past; fudge its commitments and attempt to violate the deal.. and there will be an understanding that Israel was not crying wolf.”

But Israel must do more than wait for Iran to trip up. Judging by recent efforts, it has raised its public diplomacy bar.

Senior government ministers led by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon conveyed unified, clear and simple public messages in English, warning of strategic and existential dangers that a nuclearizing, terror- sponsoring Iranian regime continues to pose. Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett’s recent US media interviews on Iran, one of which even kept CNN’s Christiane Amanpour slightly off balance, are a good example of upgraded messaging. The same messages are effective and should be branded under the interim agreement.

Israel’s public diplomacy efforts via ambassadors, Jewish and Israel-friendly organizations, friends and colleagues also helped shape the debate in Congress, which continues to call for close monitoring and tougher sanctions against Tehran. An expanded public diplomacy effort by Israel must continue to shape the international discourse on Iranian compliance with the interim agreement as part of a broader international campaign to expose the Iranian regime’s race for regional and nuclear supremacy and its leadership support for and sponsorship of international terror.

Israel has made substantial strategic and tactical improvements in its public diplomacy capabilities over the past five years. It has established an infrastructure with smart and seasoned professionals in the areas of national information and combating delegitimization, in addition to the daily yeoman’s efforts of Foreign Ministry professionals. However, the current intensified challenge requires a major upgrade of Israel’s public diplomacy infrastructure similar to what the United States did in 2011 when it established the Center of Strategic Counter- Terrorism Communications in the White House, which was created to counter Al-Qaida’s and other radical Islamic terror groups’ propaganda.

Israel’s ability to convince the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capability in a final agreement poses a major challenge for Israel. It requires a substantial investment in and expansion of the Prime Minister’s Office’s public diplomacy infrastructure, manpower and initiatives to upgrade efforts and capabilities both off-line and in cyberspace’s social and media networks in battling the increasing dangers of a nuclearizing, terror-sponsoring Iranian regime that has gained both legitimacy and time under the current interim deal.

The writer is a research fellow at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism and foreign policy fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He served as secretary general of the World Jewish Congress from 2011 to 2013.

Iran’s dangerous nuclear program | JPost | Israel News.

By TED POE

11/27/2013 10:09

The “deal” struck in Geneva will strengthen Iran’s economy, take it one step closer to becoming a nuclear power.

The six-month deal struck this Sunday in Geneva between the West and Iran does little to curtail Iran’s dangerous nuclear program and cripples the international sanctions that we have spent decades fighting for. Iran gets another slap on the wrist and we give up the best tool we have to stop them. This “deal” will not make the world safer. What it will do is strengthen Iran’s economy and take it one step closer to becoming a nuclear power. Make no mistake, a nuclear Iran will make the world a more dangerous place.

In this lopsided agreement, the Us and its fellow P5+1 countries (Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China) agreed to ease existing sanctions and not implement any more new ones in exchange for too little. Easing existing sanctions will inject $20 billion into Iran’s economy, according to Mark Dubowitz from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. This is money that Iran can and likely will use to invest in its criminal activities- whether that helps to advance its nuclear program or funds and trains terrorists abroad.

The US – and the world- got the raw end of this deal. Iran gets to keep its uranium and its 19,000 centrifuges. With these tools in place, Iran could still develop a weapon in a matter of weeks. Ignoring that fact, we’re now allowing Iran to keep all of its building blocks for a nuclear weapon because it promised to suspend its nuclear program for 6 months. Why are we trusting the word of a country with a history of terrorist-financing and an agenda to destroy Israel? Are you kidding me?

WHILE THE Administration continues its media circus to gain support for this sham of a deal, Tehran moves forward towards a nuclear bomb. Tehran has dangerous 20-percent enriched uranium, but that’s not being destroyed. Kerry lauded that it will be converted, but it’s easily reversible. Tehran will also continue construction on a plutonium heavy water reactor at Arak. This will make plutonium that just like enriched uranium is the material necessary for a nuclear weapon. Kerry applauded that Iran cannot work on the reactor directly, but it can continue constructing it. This is a dangerous game of semantics.

None of this matters though if we cannot verify that any of it is actually taking place. And here, again, is where this agreement fails. Iran has repeatedly denied access to International Atomic Energy Association inspectors and hidden its nuclear sites. Sunday’s deal does little to help inspectors guarantee access or cooperation from Iran.

The only thing that Sunday’s agreement did disarm was our international credibility. Over the years, the US has led six United Nations Security Council resolutions that called on Iran to stop enriching uranium and to abandon its nuclear program.  That is all null and void now. Despite Israel, France, and others standing up to Iran, we showed them through this agreement that we were no longer willing to make the hard decisions and lead. This is worse than the Administration’s favorite tactic of “leading from behind”, this is not leading at all.

Three weeks ago, I met with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Israel. We discussed what Iran’s nuclear program meant not only for the security of our countries, but for the safety of the entire world. When he called the agreement a “historic mistake” on Sunday, I couldn’t agree more. This is reminiscent of former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s mistake of appeasement with the Nazis by promising “peace in our time”. Chamberlain ignored Nazi Germany’s aggression and called for peace. Less than a year later, Germany started World War II. We know from history what happens when warning signs are ignored and peace agreements are rushed. We cannot afford to let it happen again. The consequences are far too dangerous.

Just because we are tired of talks doesn’t mean that we can throw in the towel. The moves outlined in this agreement do not amount to actionable, verifiable steps to dismantle Iran’s growing nuclear arsenal. They merely allow the Administration to have good sound bites for the Sunday morning shows.

Now is not the time to ease our sanctions on Iran. I and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have spoken up to protest this bad deal. In July, the House overwhelmingly passed legislation to further strengthen our sanctions against Iran. In a time of partisan divide, the fact that this bill passed 400-20 speaks volumes about the magnitude of the threat we are facing from Iran. It’s time for the Senate to pass this legislation and ignore the political pressure from the White House.

The United States must stand up and protect itself and its allies. Iran is already a threat to global world order and peace. It antagonizes Israel, trains terrorists, and wreaks havoc throughout the Middle East. An Iran emboldened by nuclear weapons will be a threat like which we have never seen before. We simply cannot allow that to happen. And that’s just the way it is.

The writer is a US Congressman and Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-proliferation & Trade.

Rouhani says Geneva nuclear deal increased Israel’s isolation | JPost | Israel News.

By JPOST.COM STAFF

11/27/2013 00:30

In Q&A session marking 100 days to his presidency, the Iranian president says Tehran’s enemies are now “more isolated than ever”; vows to never stop uranium enrichment.

The first-stage deal signed between Iran and world powers in Geneva has caused the isolation of the Islamic Republic’s enemies, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Tuesday in a TV question-and-answer session marking the first 100 days of his presidency.

“Many were trying to isolate Iran, but who is isolated today? Our enemies are in fact isolated,” the Iranian president said, according to Iran’s PressTV.

While he did not mention Israel specifically, he used a language commonly used by Arab nations to describe it, speaking of “an illegitimate, occupier regime.”

Following the signing two days prior of the deal with the P5+1 group to halt nuclear enrichment for six months as talks continue in an effort to reach a more permanent accord, Rouhani vowed to the Iranian people that Tehran will never stop uranium enrichment.

“Enrichment, which is one part of our nuclear right, will continue, it is continuing today and it will continue tomorrow and our enrichment will never stop and this is our red line,” he said.

He boasted that his administration was able to neutralize a rift of unilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran and that the deal created cracks in the sanctions regime.

As a part of the deal signed on Sunday, Iran has agreed to take measures to curb some of its nuclear activity in return for some sanctions relief and the promise no new sanctions will be imposed on Tehran in the next six months.

The Iranian Foreign Minister rejected on Tuesday a fact sheet released by the White House detailing the agreements set in the interim nuclear deal signed in Geneva.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham was quoted by Iranian news agency Fars as saying.

Iran: Construction will continue at Arak nuclear site | JPost | Israel News.

By REUTERS

11/27/2013 10:50

Possibly referring to loophole in deal with West, Iranian FM Zarif says “no new nuclear fuel will be produced,” no new components will be installed, but Islamic Republic will press on with building at heavy-water reactor.

DUBAI – Iran will press on with construction at a nuclear reactor site at Arak, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif said on Wednesday, despite an agreement with Western powers to halt activity.

The uncompleted heavy-water research reactor emerged as one of several crucial issues in negotiations in Geneva last week, when Iran agreed with six world powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear program for six months in return for limited sanctions relief.

Iran said it would not make “any further advances of its activities” on the Arak reactor, according to text of the agreement.

“The capacity at the Arak site is not going to increase. It means no new nuclear fuel will be produced and no new installations will be installed, but construction will continue there,” Zarif told parliament in translated comments broadcast on Iran’s Press TV.

But experts have said an apparent gap in the text could allow Tehran to build components off-site to install later in the nuclear reactor. It was not immediately clear if Zarif was referring to this or other construction activity.

Tehran has said it could open the reactor as soon as next year. It says its purpose is only to make medical isotopes, but Western countries say it could also produce plutonium, one of two materials, along with enriched uranium, that can be used to make the fissile core of a nuclear bomb.

Washington to stop wrangling with Israel, instead offer “embrace” with benefits, some military.

Israeli Air Force

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have decided to put a stop to the row with the Netanyahu government over the interim nuclear accord signed with Iran Sunday, Nov. 24 in Geneva, debkafile’s exclusive Washington sources report – partly because they need the prime minister’s cooperation for bringing the peace process with the Palestinians to a resolution. On this they are set.

As one US official put it Tuesday night, Nov. 26: the administration has determined “to embrace Netanyahu” from now on, instead of hitting back at his powerful castigation of Washington’s dealings with Tehran.  The administration hopes to stop this flow of rhetoric by a package of measures which it hopes will allay Israel’s concerns over the nuclear deal and the rapprochement in progress between the US and Islamic Republic.

According to our sources, the package will include upgrading of Israeli Air Force capabilities with new offensive measures currently not in its possession. This upgrade, they say, will be influenced by the level of Iran’s compliance or non-compliance with its obligations under the first-step accord just signed with the six world powers and its readiness for progress towards a final, comprehensive accord on its nuclear program.

The administration will also address the acute concerns in Riyadh and the Gulf emirates about the new US opening to Tehran.

The BDS Campaign – Prologue to Genocide – YouTube.

As the academic year at University of California Santa Cruz was about to end in June, 2013, pro-Palestinian students initiated a resolution that called on the university to divest from companies profiting from the “Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.” The resolution was defeated, yet the non-binding resolution that would have no effect on university policy is not as disconcerting as the atmosphere on campus that the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish students and professional provocateurs behind them seek to foster. They are bent on creating a climate that legitimizes and engenders anti-Israel, and anti-Jewish hostility.

The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel) movement has assembled a rather strange sort of bedfellows.  It is led by Arab-Muslim professional propagandists who seek Israel’s destruction, along with leftist students and faculty members seeking a ’cause,’ and non-better than one “to stick it to the Jews.” Among them, one could find naïve students with little understanding of the history of the Middle East or the Arab-Israeli conflict. It matters not that their cause is unjust, and transparently anti-Semitic, or that the Arab world unlike Israel’s open democracy is homophobic, enslaves women, is utterly intolerant of Christians and Jews, or that its schools breed hatred and misanthropy.

Those BDS champions on campuses throughout America and Europe do not want to be confused by facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Their minds are made up. They hate Israel because it is a success story and tolerant, and because it provides religious freedom, and human rights to its citizens in spite of Palestinian terrorism. They despise Israel because Arab-Muslim students on Israeli campuses can display their hatred of the Jewish state with impunity.  Deep in their mashed heads they should know that similar demonstrations on Palestinian or Arab campuses against an Arab regime, or any pro-Israel and pro-Jewish display, would be met with violence and death.  The terrorist alerts Israeli school children and college students face is something that the privileged students of the UC Santa Cruz’s of this world would never have to endure. They hate Israel mostly because it is willing to defend its citizens from Palestinian terrorists, and if it means checkpoints, and a barrier fence that inconveniences Palestinians, so be it.

On May 11, YNet News reported that the Irish BDS movement placed yellow stickers on Israeli products reading ‘for justice in Palestine — Boycott Israel’.  Israeli Foreign Ministry said that “the phenomenon is severe and it is not by chance that the BDS organization chose to express its protest with a yellow sticker — which is reminiscent of dark days of racism and incitement,”  a reference to the Nazi Holocaust in Europe.

Together again: How Republicans and Democrats joined forces over Obama’s Iran deal – The Week.

( And…  It took Israel to bring them together.  “A light to the nations!” – JW )

Bipartisanship lives!

A rare point of agreement. (Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Between ObamaCare, immigration reform, the budget, and food stamps, there isn’t much that Democrats and Republicans in Congress agree on these days. However, President Obama’s historic deal to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions may be just the thing to get lawmakers from both sides of the aisle working together again.

Unfortunately for Obama, they’ll be united against him.

Within hours of announcing the agreement, the White House was met by stiff opposition from high-ranking Democrats who vowed to move forward with legislation aimed at tightening sanctions against Iran — despite the Obama administration’s concerns that the move could derail the sensitive negotiations for a long-term deal.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), perhaps the most vocal detractor from the president’s own party, denounced the framework set up by his former colleague, Secretary of State John Kerry, to pause Iran’s march toward weapons of mass destruction in exchange for easing sanctions. His chief complaint? That Iran only had to freeze its nuclear enrichment program, while the United States was giving up its most valuable negotiating tool. (The administration insists that the sanctions could easily be resurrected if Iran backslides.)

“This disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December,” said Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate. “I intend to discuss that possibility with my colleagues.”

Schumer will have no trouble finding Republican allies to advance his cause, as several GOP legislators have also expressed a desire to move forward with a bill that would pile penalties on the Iranian regime.

The six-month deal, which was reached early Sunday morning in Geneva, is an interim step designed to give negotiators breathing room to hammer out a more permanent arrangement to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Democrats and Republicans alike were unhappy with the “Joint Plan of Action” because it allows Iran to keep much of its nuclear infrastructure for peaceful purposes. The United States will keep its key oil and banking sanctions in place, but let about $7 billion worth of aid and commerce flow between the two countries.

In the past 24 hours, Republicans have lined up in opposition to the plan, saying it ultimately weakens the U.S.’s bargaining position. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) argued that Congress should continue passing sanctions “until Iran completely abandons its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) compared the deal to the busted agreements with North Korea over its nuclear program, adding that the pact is a “dangerous step that degrades our pressure on the Iranian regime.”

Schumer isn’t the only Democrat criticizing the agreement. Bruised by the botched ObamaCare rollout, many Democrats are looking for a way to distance themselves from Obama in advance of the 2014 midterm elections. Punishing Iran, which has long flouted the international community’s prohibitions against developing nuclear capabilities, is an easy — and politically safe — policy for lawmakers to get behind.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the Senate would move forward with heightened sanctions, but delay their implementation by six months. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told CNN’s State of the Nation that the White House let Iran off the hook. “I don’t think you make them bargain in good faith by going squishy,” Engel said.

And even before the framework was announced, Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) signed onto a letter urging the administration not to accept terms that would allow Iran to continue enriching nuclear materials for any reason. McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also signed the letter.

The House approved more punitive sanctions in late July, just days before Iran’s new president, Hassan Rohani, took office. The measure passed with broad bipartisan support — the final vote was 400 to 20 — and gave the president the power to take action against foreign governments that do business with Iran.

If the Senate follows suit, it could put Obama in the awkward position of vetoing a bipartisan bill aimed at getting tough on Iran — a situation that the White House would understandably want to avoid.