WarSclerotic

Salafists Responsible for Eilat Rocket Attack -israelnationalnews.

Ansar Bayt al-Makdis, a Sinai-based jihadi group, vows that ‘the Jews will only see injury from us.’

By Tova Dvorin

Illustration: Eilat Marina

Flash 90

The Long War Journal reports Tuesday that a Sinai-based Salafist group has claimed responsibility for Monday’s rocket fire on Eilat.

The jihadist group, named Ansar Jerusalem or Ansar Bayt al Makdis, posted on Gaza-based social media a statement boasting the attack.

“Our war with the enemy in Egypt has not dissuaded us from the war against the first enemy of our nation,” the statement claims. “With Allah’s help, the Jews will only see injury from us.”

The organization is believed to be the most prominent group operating against the Egyptian army in recent months.

The group has attempted to kill Egyptian officials, including the country’s interior minister. In December, they launched a deadly attack in Mansoura which killed 14 – and pushed Cairo to blacklist the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, leading to clashes country-wide between Brotherhood supporters and the new government.

Last month, the Egyptian Army eliminated the group’s leader, Ibrahim Abu Atiyeh, who was also directly responsible for rocket fire against the resort town in August.

In the past few months, the Egyptian armed forces have launched large scale military operations against terrorists in Sinai in an attempt to suppress the insurgency. The terror groups have hit back – a torrent of attacks by gangs of Al Qaeda-inspired Islamic terrorists have killed many Egyptian soldiers and policemen since former President Mohammed Morsi’s overthrow.

The rocket fire came just 24 hours after Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon warned Hamas terrorists in Gaza to stop firing rockets at southern Israel.

“We will not accept the targeting by terrorists of Israel, and we will act to cause damage to anyone that threatens the security of our citizens,” he added.

Ya’alon stressed that the days of terrorists taking “free shots” at Israel were over.

“We will not permit a return to the days when rocket attacks were a matter of routine. Anyone who tries this will pay the price. I would not recommend anyone in Gaza to try our determination to defend Israelis,” Ya’alon warned.

Tags: Eilat, Salafi Islam, rocket fire, Salafists, Salafi terror groups

Charles Krauthammer: How to fight academic bigotry – The Washington Post.

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: January 9 E-mail the writer

Made more so when you consider the state of human rights in Israel’s neighborhood. As we speak, Syria’s government is dropping “barrel bombs” filled with nails, shrapnel and other instruments of terror on its own cities. Where is the ASA boycott of Syria?

And of Iran, which hangs political, religious and even sexual dissidents and has no academic freedom at all? Or Egypt, where Christians are being openly persecuted? Or Turkey, Saudi Arabia or, for that matter, massively repressive China and Russia?

Which makes obvious that the ASA boycott has nothing to do with human rights. It’s an exercise in radical chic, giving marginalized academics a frisson of pretend anti-colonialism, seasoned with a dose of edgy anti-Semitism.

And don’t tell me this is merely about Zionism. The ruse is transparent. Israel is the world’s only Jewish state. To apply to the state of the Jews a double standard that you apply to none other, to judge one people in a way you judge no other, to single out that one people for condemnation and isolation — is to engage in a gross act of discrimination.

And discrimination against Jews has a name. It’s called anti-Semitism.

Former Harvard president Larry Summers called the ASA actions “anti-Semitic in their effect if not necessarily in their intent.” I choose to be less polite. The intent is clear: to incite hatred for the largest — and only sovereign — Jewish community on Earth.

What to do? Facing a similar (British) academic boycott of Israelis seven years ago, Alan Dershowitz and Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg wrote an open letter declaring that, for the purposes of any anti-Israel boycott, they are to be considered Israelis.

Meaning: You discriminate against Israelis? Fine. Include us out. We will have nothing to do with you.

Thousands of other academics added their signatures to the Dershowitz/Weinberg letter. It was the perfect in-kind response. Boycott the boycotters, with contempt.

But academia isn’t the only home for such prejudice. Throughout the cultural world, the Israel boycott movement is growing. It’s become fashionable for musicians, actors, writers and performers of all kinds to ostentatiously cleanse themselves of Israel and Israelis.

The example of the tuxedoed set has spread to the more coarse and unkempt anti-Semites, such as the thugs who a few years ago disrupted London performances of the Jerusalem Quartet and the Israeli Philharmonic.

Five years ago in Sweden, Israel’s Davis Cup team had to play its matches in an empty tennis stadium because the authorities could not guarantee the Israelis’ safety from the mob. The most brazen display of rising anti-Semitism today is the spread of the “quenelle,” a reverse Nazi salute, popularized by the openly anti-Semitic French entertainer, Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala.

In this sea of easy and open bigotry, an unusual man has made an unusual statement. Russian by birth, European by residence, Evgeny Kissin is arguably the world’s greatest piano virtuoso. He is also a Jew of conviction. Deeply distressed by Israel’s treatment in the cultural world around him, Kissin went beyond the Dershowitz/Weinberg stance of asking to be considered an Israeli. On Dec. 7, he became one, defiantly.

Upon taking the oath of citizenship in Jerusalem, he declared: “I am a Jew, Israel is a Jewish state. . . . Israel’s case is my case, Israel’s enemies are my enemies, and I do not want to be spared the troubles which Israeli musicians encounter when they represent the Jewish state beyond its borders.”

Full disclosure: I have a personal connection with Kissin. For the past two years I’ve worked to bring him to Washington to perform for Pro Musica Hebraica, a nonprofit organization (founded by my wife and me) dedicated to reviving lost and forgotten Jewish classical music. We succeeded. On Feb. 24, Kissin will perform at the Kennedy Center Concert Hall masterpieces of Eastern European Jewish music, his first U.S. appearance as an Israeli.

The persistence of anti-Semitism, that most ancient of poisons, is one of history’s great mysteries. Even the shame of the Holocaust proved no antidote. It provided but a temporary respite. Anti-Semitism is back. Alas, a new generation must learn to confront it.

How? How to answer the thugs, physical and intellectual, who single out Jews for attack? The best way, the most dignified way, is to do like Dershowitz, Weinberg or Kissin.

Express your solidarity. Sign the open letter or write your own. Don the yellow star and wear it proudly.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was for Iran Sanctions Before She was Against Them | FrontPage Magazine.

( The worst of the worst… Lots out there about this. Google her and Iran and see for yourselves… – JW )

Between her support for new sanctions on Iran and opposition to new sanctions on Iran, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a little frazzled these days.

Like a sitcom plot about a character who has two dates on the same night, Debbie is dating Obama’s Iran appeasement policies and her Jewish constituents at the same time and so she has to rush from restaurant to restaurant, telling increasingly crazy lies to each of her dates.

Or she just has her spokeswoman do it for her.

Is Debbie Wasserman Schultz against new sanctions on Iran? Absolutely.

Her spokeswoman, Mara Sloan, told The Daily Beast that Wasserman Schultz  does support holding off on new sanctions until the diplomacy plays out.

That was back on January 11. A whole lifetime ago. On January 10, however, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was for new sanctions on Iran.

Mara Sloan said: “Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been a strong supporter of sanctions against Iran and will continue to be. She has cosponsored and voted for the additional sanctions bill that has already passed the house. Currently, there is not a resolution on sanctions offered in the House. As soon as one is filed, she will review the language, as she does with any legislation and decide whether it helps to ensure that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.”

Which is a complicated way of saying that she can’t be accused of voting against sanctions that haven’t come to the floor yet. But that’s not what Debbie is being accused of. She’s being accused of working to stop the resolution before it ever gets filed. And should this hypothetical resolution exist, despite her best efforts, she will decide whether to support it or not.

Which version of Debbie do you believe? The one from Jan  11 who expressed opposition to new sanctions, rather than the one from Jan 10 who spent more time weaseling than most actual weasels.

One senior legislative assistance in the congresswoman’s D.C. office even denied that such a resolution existed, according to Stephen Fiske, chair of the Florida Congressional Committee PAC, a nonpartisan, pro-Israel political action committee.

“I pushed and said, hypothetically, if the House were to come up with the identical wording as stated in Senate’s bill—The Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act of 2013—will Debbie sign on?” Fiske recalled.

The staffer responded by saying “she will not answer,” Fiske said.

So that’s a firm, uh. Exactly what you expect from J Street’s house congresswoman.

My home is under attack for the second time tonight.  First volley of 2 Grads caused no casualties and light damage to a restaurant.

No reports yet on damage or casualties from the second volley.

And I’m sitting in goddamned California suffering from the flu. 

I’m going home as soon as I’m well enough to fly. 

– JW

U/D Police spokesperson of Eilat reporting 2nd rocket attack was false report all clear given

( Amazing speech! The first honest speech of a Western leader about Israel that I have heard…. – JW )

The full, unedited text of Stephen Harper’s prepared speech to the Israel parliament, the first to the Knesset by a Canadian prime minister. Passages in French are marked in italics.

Shalom.

And thank you for inviting me to visit this remarkable country, and especially for this opportunity to address the Knesset.

It is truly a great honour.

And if I may, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my wife Laureen and the entire Canadian delegation, let me begin by thanking the government and people of Israel for the warmth of your hospitality.

You have made us feel extremely welcome.

We have felt immediately at home.

Ladies and gentlemen, Canada and Israel are the greatest of friends, and the most natural of allies.

And, with your indulgence, I would like to offer a reflection upon what makes the relationship between Canada and Israel special and important.

Because the relationship between us is very strong.

L’amitié entre le Canada et Israël prend ses racines dans l’histoire, se nourrit de valeurs communes et se renforce volontairement aux plus hauts échelons du commerce et du gouvernement ce qui est l’expression de fermes convictions.

The friendship between us is rooted in history, nourished by shared values, and it is intentionally reinforced at the highest levels of commerce and government as an outward expression of strongly held inner convictions.

There has, for example, been a free trade agreement in place between Canada and Israel for many years, an agreement that has already proved its worth.

The elimination of tariffs on industrial products, and some foodstuffs, has led to a doubling in the value of trade between our countries.

But this only scratches the surface of the economic potential of this relationship. And I look forward to soon deepening and broadening our mutual trade and investment goals.

As well, our military establishments share information and technology. This has also been to our mutual benefit.

For example, during Canada’s mission to Afghanistan, our use of Israeli-built reconnaissance equipment saved the lives of Canadian soldiers.

All such connections are important, and build strong bridges between us.

Pour bien comprendre la relation particulière entre Israël et le Canada, il faut regarder, au-delà du commerce et des institutions, les liens personnels tissés par l’amitié et la parenté.

However, to truly understand the special relationship between Israel and Canada, one must look beyond trade and institutions, to the personal ties of friendship and kinship.

Jews have been present in Canada for more than 250 years.

In generation after generation, by hard work and perseverance, Jewish immigrants, often starting with nothing, have prospered greatly.

Today, there are nearly 350,000 Canadians who share with you their heritage and their faith.

They are proud Canadians.

But having met literally thousands of members of this community, I can tell you this:

They are also immensely proud of what the people of Israel have accomplished here: Of your courage in war, of your generosity in peace, and of the bloom that the desert has yielded under your stewardship.

Laureen and I share that pride. The pride and the understanding that what has been achieved here has occurred in the shadow of the horrors of the Holocaust.

La compréhension du fait qu’il est juste d’appuyer Israël parce qu’après avoir connu la persécution durant plusieurs générations, le peuple juif mérite d’avoir son propre pays et mérite de vivre en sécurité et en paix dans ce pays.

The understanding that it is right to support Israel because, after generations of persecution, the Jewish people deserve their own homeland and deserve to live safely and peacefully in that homeland.

Let me repeat that: Canada supports Israel because it is right to do so.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper addresses the Israeli parliament on Monday, the first address to the Knesset by a Canadian prime minister. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

This is a very Canadian trait, to do something for no reason other than it is right, even when no immediate reward for, or threat to, ourselves is evident.

On many occasions, Canadians have even gone so far as to bleed and die to defend the freedom of others in far-off lands.

To be clear, we have also periodically made terrible mistakes, as in the refusal of our government in the 1930s to ease the plight of Jewish refugees.

But, as a country, at the turning points of history, Canada has consistently chosen, often to our great cost, to stand with others who oppose injustice, and to confront the dark forces of the world.

Il est donc dans la tradition canadienne de défendre ce qui est juste et fondé sur des principes, que ce soit ou non commode ou populaire.

It is, thus, a Canadian tradition to stand for what is principled and just, regardless of whether it is convenient or popular.

But, I would argue, support today for the Jewish State of Israel is more than a moral imperative.

It is also of strategic importance, also a matter of our own long-term interests.

Ladies and gentlemen, I said a moment ago, that the special friendship between Canada and Israel is rooted in shared values.

En effet, Israël est le seul pays du Moyen-Orient à s’être ancré depuis longtemps dans les idéaux de liberté, de démocratie et de primauté du droit.

Indeed, Israel is the only country in the Middle East Which has long anchored itself in the ideals of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

These are not mere notions.

They are the things that, over time and against all odds, have proven to be the only ground in which human rights, political stability, and economic prosperity, may flourish.

These values are not proprietary. They do not belong to one nation or one people.

Nor are they a finite resource.

On the contrary, the wider they are spread, the stronger they grow.

Likewise, when they are threatened anywhere, they are threatened everywhere.

And what threatens them? Or more precisely, what today threatens the societies that embrace such values and the progress they nurture?

Those who scorn modernity, who loathe the liberty of others, and who hold the differences of peoples and cultures in contempt.

Those who often begin by hating the Jews. But, history shows us, end up hating anyone who is not them.

Those forces, Which have threatened the state of Israel every single day of its existence, and which, today, as 9-11 graphically showed us, threaten us all.

Ou bien, nous défendons nos valeurs et nos intérêts, ici, en Israël. Nous défendons l’existence d’un État libre, démocratique et distinctement juif. Ou bien nous amorçons un recul, sur le plan de nos valeurs et de nos intérêts dans le monde.

And so, either we stand up for our values and our interests, here, in Israel. Stand up for the existence of a free, democratic and distinctively Jewish state. Or the retreat of our values and our interests in the world will begin.

Ladies and gentlemen, just as we refuse to retreat from our values, so we must also uphold the duty to advance them.

And our commitment as Canadians to what is right, fair and just is a universal one. It applies no less to the Palestinian people, than it does to the people of Israel.

Autant le Canada soutient sans réserve le droit d’Israël à la légitime défense, autant il préconise depuis longtemps un avenir juste et sûr pour le peuple palestinien.

Just as we unequivocally support Israel’s right of self-defence, so too Canada has long-supported a just and secure future for the Palestinian people.

And, I believe, we share with Israel a sincere hope that the Palestinian people and their leaders will choose a viable, democratic, Palestinian state, committed to living peacefully alongside the Jewish state of Israel.

As you, Prime Minister, have said, when Palestinians make peace with Israel, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations.

It will be the first.

Sadly, we have yet to reach that point. But, when that day comes, and come it must, I can tell you that Israel may be the first to welcome a sovereign Palestinian state, but Canada will be right behind you.

Ladies and Gentlemen, support – even firm support – doesn’t mean that allies and friends will agree on all issues all of the time.

No state is beyond legitimate questioning or criticism.

But our support does mean at least three things.

First, Canada finds it deplorable that some in the international community still question the legitimacy of the existence of the state of Israel.

Notre point de vue sur le droit à l’existence d’Israël en tant qu’État juif est absolu et non négociable.

Our view on Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is absolute and non-negotiable.

Deuxièmement, le Canada est convaincu qu’Israël devrait pouvoir exercer ses pleins droits d’État membre de l’ONU et profiter de sa souveraineté dans toute sa mesure.

Second, Canada believes that Israel should be able to exercise its full rights as a UN member-state and to enjoy the full measure of its sovereignty.

For this reason, Canada has spoken on numerous occasions in support of Israel’s engagement and equal treatment in multilateral fora.

And, in this regard, I should mention, that we welcome Israel’s induction this month into the western, democratic group of states at the United Nations.

Troisièmement, nous nous refusons à critiquer Israël de façon isolée sur la scène internationale.

Third, we refuse to single out Israel for criticism on the international stage.

Now I understand, in the world of diplomacy, with one, solitary, Jewish state and scores of others, it is all too easy “to go along to get along” and single out Israel.

But such “going along to get along,” is not a “balanced” approach, nor a sophisticated” one. It is, quite simply, weak and wrong.

Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, we live in a world where that kind of moral relativism runs rampant.

And in the garden of such moral relativism, the seeds of much more sinister notions can be easily planted.

And so we have witnessed, in recent years, the mutation of the old disease of anti-Semitism and the emergence of a new strain.

We all know about the old anti-Semitism.

It was crude and ignorant, and it led to the horrors of the death camps.

Of course, in many dark corners, it is still with us.

But, in much of the western world, the old hatred has been translated into more  sophisticated language for use in polite society.

People who would never say they hate and blame the Jews for their own failings or the problems of the world, instead declare their hatred of Israel and blame the only Jewish state for the problems of the Middle East.

As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some civil-society leaders today call for a boycott of Israel.

On some campuses, intellectualized arguments against Israeli policies thinly mask the underlying realities, such as the shunning of Israeli academics and the harassment of Jewish students.

Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state.

Think about that.

Think about the twisted logic and outright malice behind that: a state, based on freedom, democracy and the rule of law, that was founded so Jews can flourish as Jews, and seek shelter from the shadow of the worst racist experiment in history.

That is condemned, and that condemnation is masked in the language of anti-racism.

It is nothing short of sickening.

Mais il s’agit du nouveau visage de l’antisémitisme. Un antisémitisme qui vise le peuple juif en prétendant viser Israël.

But, this is the face of the new anti-Semitism. It targets the Jewish people by targeting Israel and attempts to make the old bigotry acceptable for a new generation.

Of course, criticism of Israeli government policy is not in and of itself necessarily anti-Semitic.

But what else can we call criticism that selectively condemns only the Jewish state and effectively denies its right to defend itself, while systematically ignoring – or excusing – the violence and oppression all around it?

What else can we call it when Israel is routinely targeted at the United Nations?

And when Israel remains the only country to be the subject of a permanent agenda item at the regular sessions of its Human Rights Council?

Ladies and gentlemen, any assessment – any judgment – of Israel’s actions must start with this understanding:

Depuis soixante-cinq ans qu’existe comme nation l’État moderne d’Israël, les israéliens ont enduré d’innombrables attaques et calomnies et n’ont pas eu une seule journée de véritable paix.

In the sixty-five years that modern Israel has been a nation, Israelis have endured attacks and slanders beyond counting and have never known a day of true peace.

And we understand that Israelis live with this, impossible calculus: If you act to defend yourselves, you will suffer widespread condemnation, over and over again.

But, should you fail to act, you alone will suffer the consequence of your inaction, and that consequence will be final, your destruction.

La vérité, que le Canada comprend, est que beaucoup des forces hostiles dirigées contre Israël s’exercent aussi sur tous les pays occidentaux.

Et Israël y fait face pour beaucoup des mêmes raisons que nous.

Mais Israël y est confronté de beaucoup plus près.

The truth, that Canada understands, is that many of the hostile forces Israel faces, are faced by all
western nations.

And Israel faces them for many of the same reasons we face them.

You just happen to be a lot closer to them.

Of course, no nation is perfect. But neither Israel’s existence nor its policies are responsible for the instability in the Middle East today.

One must look beyond Israel’s borders to find the causes of the relentless oppression, poverty and violence in much of the region, of the heartbreaking suffering of Syrian refugees, of sectarian violence and the fears of religious minorities, especially Christians, and of the current domestic turmoil in so many states.

So what are we to do?

Most importantly, we must deal with the world as we find it.

The threats in this region are real, deeply rooted, and deadly and the forces of progress, often anaemically weak.

For too many nations, it is still easier to scapegoat Israel than to emulate your success.

It is easier to foster resentment and hatred of Israel’s democracy than it is to provide the same rights and freedoms to their own people.

Je suis convaincu qu’un État palestinien viendra, et l’une des conditions qui va lui permettre de venir c’est lorsque les régimes qui financent le terrorisme se rendront compte que le chemin de la paix est celui de la conciliation, pas celui de la violence.

I believe that a Palestinian state will come, and one thing that will make it come is when the regimes that bankroll terrorism realise that the path to peace is accommodation, not violence.

Which brings me to the government of Iran.

Late last year, the world announced a new approach to diplomacy with the government in Tehran.

Canada has long held the view that every diplomatic measure should be taken to ensure that regime never obtains a nuclear weapon.

We therefore appreciate the earnest efforts of the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany.

Canada will evaluate The success of this approach not on the merits of its words, but on the implementation and verification of its promised actions.

Nous espérons vraiment qu’il soit possible d’obtenir que le gouvernement iranien renonce à s’engager, sur la voie sans retour, de la fabrication des armes nucléaires.

Mais, pour le moment, le Canada maintient intégralement en vigueur les sanctions que nous avons imposées.

We truly hope that it is possible to walk the Iranian government back from taking the irreversible step of manufacturing nuclear weapons.

But, for now, Canada’s own sanctions will remain fully in place.

And should our hopes not be realized, should the present agreement prove ephemeral Canada will be a strong voice for renewed sanctions.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude with this thought.

Je crois que l’histoire d’Israël est un très bel exemple pour le monde entier.

I believe the story of Israel is a great example to the world.

It is a story, essentially, of a people whose response to suffering has been to move beyond resentment and build a most extraordinary society, a vibrant democracy, a freedom-loving country with an independent and rights-affirming judiciary, an innovative, world-leading “start-up” nation.

You have taken the collective memory of death and persecution to build an optimistic, forward-looking land one that so values life, you will sometimes release a thousand criminals and terrorists, to save one of your own.

In the democratic family of nations, Israel represents values which our government takes as articles of faith, and principles to drive our national life.

And therefore, through fire and water, Canada will stand with you.

My friends, you have been generous with your time and attention.

Once more, Laureen and I and our entire delegation thank you for your generous hospitality, and look forward to continuing our visit to your country.

Merci beaucoup.

Thank you for having us, and may peace be upon Israel.

Netanyahu pours cold water on interim nuclear agreement on its first day | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON

LAST UPDATED: 01/20/2014 21:00

At a speech welcoming the Canadian prime minister, Netanyahu says that deal does not stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons; says int’l community should demand Iran stop arming terror groups in region.

Interior of Bushehr nuclear plant Photo: REUTERS/Stringer Iran

The Iranian interim agreement that went into effect on Monday does not prevent Iran from implementing its intentions to create nuclear weapons, Prime Minister Netanyahu said in the Knesset.

Netanyahu, in a speech welcoming visiting Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the Knesset on Monday, said that the international community’s goal – one that has not yet been achieved — must be stopping the Iranians from gaining the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.

The prime minister likened the manufacturing of the fissile material needed to make a bomb to a train that must pass through three stops: the first stop of enriching uranium to 3.5 percent, the second stop of enriching uranium to 20 percent, and the final step of enriching uranium to 90 percent.

“The agreement in Geneva did away with the 20% stop, but left the train on its track and enables Iran to upgrade the locomotive by developing new centrifuges, so that when the day comes it can leap in a very short time to the final stop on an express track without stopping at an intermediary stop,” he said.

The final agreement that the world powers negotiates with Iran must take the “Iranian nuclear train off the tracks,” Netanyahu said, adding that Iran must not be allowed to have the capability to manufacture a bomb.

Netanyahu also said that the international community should be demanding of Iran – at a time when it is relieving sanctions and giving Teheran legitimization – that it end its calls for the destruction of Israel, and the arming of terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

Harper also addressed Iran, saying that Canada has long held the view that every diplomatic step needed to be taken to keep the Iranians from a bomb, and as a result Ottawa appreciated the efforts of the world powers to find a diplomatic solution.

At the same time, he added, “Canada will evaluate the success of this approach not on the merits of its words, but on the implementation and verification of its promised actions.”

Harper said he hoped it would be possible to “walk the Iranian government back from taking the irreversible step of manufacturing nuclear weapons. But, for now, Canada’s own sanctions will remain fully in place. And should our hopes not be realized, should the present agreement prove ephemeral, Canada will be a strong voice for renewed sanctions.”

Poll: Two-Thirds of Israelis Think Obama Will Let Iran Go Nuclear » Matzav.com – The Online Voice of Torah Jewry.

According to new poll, a huge majority of Israelis do not trust President Obama with regard to Iran, and believe Obama will allow Iran to go nuclear. Only 22 percent of Israeli voters believed that Obama would “ensure that Iran does not achieve a nuclear weapon.”

Almost two-thirds of Israelis thought that statement was untrue, and 15 percent gave no answer. President Obama has just a 33 percent favorable rating in Israel, as opposed to a 50 percent disapproval rating. Even those who favor Obama are split evenly on whether or not he will prevent Iran from going nuclear.

Obama’s favorability ratings actually rate higher than many Israeli officials, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clocks in at a healthy 51 percent approval rating. Thirty percent of voters for Netanyahu’s Likud party favor Obama.

Obama rates higher with Israeli leftists, who favor him by a 42 percent to 35 percent margin, with 23 percent claiming ignorance. A full 45 percent of Israeli Arab voters refused to rate Obama; those who did answer disfavored Obama by a shocking 11 percent to 44 percent margin.

The Attack was put On-hold – Not Canceled.

The agreement between Iran and the superpowers, which came into force this week, does not take off the table the option of military attack. If Israel will gather evidence for continued Iranian enrichment, an attack seems incredibly possible

For Israel, the agreement between Iran and the superpowers, which came into force this week, requires two immediate steps: On the one hand, make a special effort to collect intelligence that proves that Iran is deceiving the world and continues to strive for a nuclear bomb, and at the same time make the preparations for the possibility that Israel would have to eventually attacking itself in Iran, to thwart the nuclear program.

It is important to remember in this context that the ratified agreement was signed in Geneva this week despite strong opposition from Israel. Almost to the last minute, Israeli teams (mainly headed by the Head of National Security Council, Yossi Cohen) tried to convince the Americans and the representatives of the other powers that the agreement is a historic mistake.

The reality perception of the policy makers and Israeli intelligence is that the chance that Iran would actually give up its nuclear program is negligible, and the agreement is just a scam designed to ease the sanctions on Iran, while they continue to develop their first bomb far from the eyes of IAEA inspectors.

After the signing of the agreement of principles with Iran over a month ago, there were disagreements about the interpretation of some clauses in the agreement, and foremost the question of whether Iran is allowed to continue to develop centrifuges to enrich uranium that could be used also for military purposes (and not only for electricity generating, as was permitted to Iran de-facto). The Israeli interpretation was that Iran must not produce even a single new centrifuge, except substitute for those who will break.

The Iranians were quick to announce they will continue to develop a new generation of centrifuges, to enrich uranium more efficiently and faster. As expected, the West more or less folded at this point, in the Interim Agreement came into force this week. Estimates made by the Israeli government, according to which the United States will not attack Iran in 2014, are probably correct: Obama has proved that his preference for speaking over attacking is for him an ideology.

For Jerusalem as well, the existing political circumstances allow no viable political option for an attack, but the situation can change within months. If Israel manages to gather intelligence evidence that Iran continues to “work” on the atomic bomb, the Cabinet may convene dramatic meetings and order attack in the near summer or fall months. It is not scripted fiction.

In light of Israel’s unequivocal assessment that the agreement is fraudulent, the question arises: Is there nevertheless an actual chance that Iran will “freeze” its nuclear dream? Because after all, they are not entirely suckers, and they set quite a few mechanisms which will ensure close monitoring of the nuclear project. Also the belief that Syria will disarm from the chemical weapons in its possession was not promising, and yet it is happening these current days

No Holds Barred: The courage of Cory Booker | JPost | Israel News.

By SHMULEY BOTEACH

01/19/2014 22:44

US President Barack Obama has dropped the hammer on 16 Democratic senators who have joined a bold Robert Menendez.

US President Barack Obama has dropped the hammer on 16 Democratic senators who have joined a bold Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, and Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois, in co-sponsoring new legislation that will increase sanctions against Iran, should they fail to follow through on their pledges to halt uranium enrichment. The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013 has also attracted 43 Republican co-sponsors, bringing the total to 59.

If they get to 67, they will have a veto-proof majority, something the White House is doing everything to prevent.

One of those brave 16 is my close friend Sen. Cory Booker, who has had a unique and special relationship with the Jewish community since I met him as an undergraduate at Oxford University in 1992. As is well-known, Cory served as president of my Oxford L’Chaim society, where he arguably became the first African-American/Christian head of a major Jewish organization in history. Cory and I then began studying Torah on a regular basis, and he has probably been invited to lecture more American Jewish communal venues than any other political figure in the US. What Cory has seen, as have his other intrepid Senate colleagues, is that Iran is an immense danger to the world in general, and to Israel and the US in particular.

Iran is a menace. This is a regime that exhibits brutality in every field. I just finished reading Days of God by James Buchan, which is a phenomenal history of modern Iran from Reza Shaw’s time, who ruled Iran from 1925-1941, to Muhammad Reza, who ruled as Shah until 1979, through Khomeini’s Iranian revolution of that same year, to the regime currently run by the murderous and barbarous Ayatollah Ali Khameini.

This is a regime that recruited boys from the age of 12 to fight against Saddam Hussein’s armies in the 10-year Iran-Iraq war; this regime move caused even ruthless Iraqi soldiers to cry as they mowed down the Iranian boys attacking them across battlefields.

Iran also used children in this war to clear minefields, as detailed in Ami Pedahzur’s Root Causes of Suicide Terrorism. It is the same regime that stones women to death for accusations of infidelity, and hangs homosexuals from cranes in the capital of Tehran.

It is the regime that the US State Department lists as one of the foremost global exporters of terrorism, funding Hezbollah, which blew up 241 American peacekeeping marines, soldiers and sailors in 1983 Beirut. It is the regime which mowed down their own people in the streets of Tehran in the Green Revolution of 2009, when innocent Iranians protested a stolen election. And it is the regime that publicly shot 26-year-old protester Neda Agha-Soltan in the heart.

Today Iran, like a heat-seeking missile, continues to seek out warm Jewish blood wherever it may be spilled, like the 2012 brutal murder of six innocent Israelis who planned simply to lie on a beach on a Bulgarian vacation – but instead came home in a box.

That Obama is placing all the pressure on 16 senators from his own party rather than squarely on the Iranians where it belongs is, sadly, true to form.

Whatever debatable successes the president has had in domestic policies, what is indisputable is his catastrophic foreign policy. Iraq today has turned into one giant suicide explosion, and large parts of the country – like Fallujah, where so many marines have died – are slowly going over to al-Qaida. Egypt is a mess and utterly distrusts the US. Secretary of State John Kerry comes to Israel every week to make what he calls an urgent peace between Israel and the Palestinians, yet utterly ignores the 130,000 dead in the Syrian civil war, just slightly to the north. Russia has gained the upper hand over the US in global diplomacy, and Vladimir Putin bestrides the world like a colossus.

With all that, President Obama is insistent on pressuring brave Democratic senators of his own party who want to keep Iran in check, so that he can hand over $10 billion to the murderous mullahs to enable them to prop up their regime – without demanding that they dismantle their nuclear framework.

And a great deal of the president’s pressure is falling on our newly elected Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey.

Last month, Taglit-Birthright co-founder Michael Steinhardt, who is also a former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, and I took out fullpage ads in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. In these ads, we promoted the message of my hero and friend, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel, to whom I introduced Sen. Booker, beseeching Obama as well as the US Senate to insist that Iran’s nuclear facilities be dismantled. Inspections, Wiesel said, are not enough, as we discovered with North Korea – which agreed to a similar deal in 1994, only to lie and detonate a bomb in 2006.

Contrasting Wiesel’s call in the Jewish community was Peter Beinart, a member of Cory’s Rhodes Scholar class and someone I hosted at Shabbat meals at Oxford. While Beinart and I remain friendly, that did not stop him from savaging Cory (do I detect a hint of envy?) for his close relationship with the Jewish community in general, and me in particular – in a column where Beinart was forced to change the libelous subhead, after he claimed it was written by an underling without his approval.

Unlike Wiesel, who is known as one of the most respected moral voices in the word, Beinart, of course, is best-known for calling for a boycott on Israeli products like Soda Stream, because they are manufactured beyond the Green Line – the arbitrary armistice line of 1949 where the Arab armies, threatening Israel’s annihilation, were halted.

Beinart’s column and forum, Open Zion, has now been canceled by the Daily Beast, presumably due to lack of interest, and he has been reduced to writing his screeds in Haaretz, where he has become yet another tiresome critic of Israel. (Incidentally Beinart has accepted my invitation to debate on Iran, and we hope to stage the event shortly.) Beinart and his kind scapegoat Israel’s settlers as principal obstacles to Middle East peace, just as Khomeini himself scapegoated the US for the same. Khomeini’s followers coined the now-familiar Iranian chant of America as the great Satan.

Today, Iran is developing intercontinental missiles with a range that could reach targets in the continental US. But even if that were not the case, imagine how courageous it must be for a Democratic senator like Cory Booker to oppose, as one of his first acts as a newly elected senator, the leader of his own party, the president of the United States, on insisting that Iran now acquire weapons of mass destruction.

In 1955, president John F. Kenney published his Pulitzer-Prize winning book, Profiles in Courage, which detailed the gutsy actions on the part of US senators who followed their conscience on matters of principle, even if it lost them votes or ran afoul of their own party. Since then the American people have significantly soured on Congress, which today has an approval rating of just 9 percent. But what Cory and his 15 other Democratic colleagues have shown is that courage in the US Senate is alive and well.

The writer, whom The Washington Post calls “the most famous rabbi in America,” will shortly publish Kosher Lust: Love Is Not the Answer. Follow him on Twitter: @RabbiShmuley.

Obama pragmatic, pessimistic on future of Mideast – Israel News, Ynetnews.

American president expresses doubts about his three most significant Middle East interventions, but believes any progress is positive, even as Israeli forces try to torpedo talks

Yitzhak Benhorin

Well-schooled, no doubt, in the experiences of his predecessors in trying to bring about a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, US President Barack Obama apparently has a conservative outlook when it comes to his own success.

In a far-ranging interview with the New Yorker’s editor David Remnick published Sunday, Obama expressed doubts about that and his other two major US initiatives in the Middle East – concerning the Iranian nuclear program and the Syrian civil war. According to Remnick, Obama believes that the probability of reaching an agreement on all three is less than 50 percent.

“In all three circumstances we may be able to push the boulder partway up the hill and maybe stabilize it so it doesn’t roll back on us,” Obama said, referring to the current turbulence in the region. “And all three are connected. I do believe that the region is going through rapid change and inexorable change. Some of it is demographics; some of it is technology; some of it is economics. And the old order, the old equilibrium, is no longer tenable. The question then becomes, What’s next?”

Obama’s pessimism about the peace process seems warranted as the dust settles from the latest hitch in the relationship between Israel and the US. Last week, Yedioth Ahronoth revealed Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon had called US Secretary of State John Kerry “messianic” and “obsessive” about his determination to reach a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

When it comes to Israel, Obama says that the Jewish state has much in common with the Sunni Arab nations, who are also concerned by

Iran’s nuclear aspirations and the threat of the Shiite militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, a key supporter of both Iran and the embattled Syrian leader, Bashar Assad, whose country is now in its third year of civil war. But, warns the president, there are at least as many things dividing Israel from these potential allies, and not just the conflict with the Palestinians.

“With respect to Israel, the interests of Israel in stability and security are actually very closely aligned with the interests of the Sunni states,” he told Remnick. “What’s preventing them from entering into even an informal alliance with at least normalized diplomatic relations is not that their interests are profoundly in conflict but the Palestinian issue, as well as a long history of anti-Semitism that’s developed over the course of decades there, and anti-Arab sentiment that’s increased inside of Israel based on seeing buses being blown up.”

Iran has been a central tenet of the president’s foreign policy, and his drive for tough sanctions on the Islamic state seemed to have paid off with Tehran now agreeing to a new deal on its nuclear program. But the deal could now be under threat, thanks to a bill proposal from his own country’s lawmakers, which flies in the face of his carefully constructed plan for handling Iran.

Instead of loosening sanctions as a sweetner for Iran to abide by the agreement reach last year, Congress may well vote to impose tighter restrictions on the country. And on this issue he makes a connection to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s well-known skepticism about the negotiations with Iran.

“Historically, there is hostility and suspicion toward Iran, not just among members of Congress but the American people… members of Congress are very attentive to what Israel says on its security issues,” Obama told Remnick. He was firm however, that such a move would not be allowed to derail the progress he feels he has made on the issue. “I don’t think a new sanctions bill will reach my desk during this period, but, if it did, I would veto it and expect it to be sustained.”

Obama, Remnick writes, experienced his “lowest moments in the Middle East” when trying to tackle the war-torn Syria, whose internecine conflict is now in its third year, with at least 100,000 believed dead and hundreds of thousands of Syrians living as refugees in neighboring states.

Here too, the president is pictured as pragmatic on the chances of successfully negotiating an end to the fighting, but has no regrets not following through on his threat to take military action the Syrian regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons against its own civilian population. An eleventh hour solution apparently inspired by a throw-away remark from John Kerry led to the Syrian government agreeing to hand over its chemical weapon stockpiles to foreign powers. He is also steadfast about his caution over allowing the US to become embroiled in another war in the region.

“I am not haunted by my decision not to engage in another Middle Eastern war,” Obama told Remnick.

“It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which our involvement in Syria would have led to a better outcome, short of us being willing to undertake an effort in size and scope similar to what we did in Iraq. And when I hear people suggesting that somehow if we had just financed and armed the opposition earlier, that somehow Assad would be gone by now and we’d have a peaceful transition, it’s magical thinking.”