Archive for April 2015

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Iran, U.S. allies strike agreement on nuclear deal

April 2, 2015

Iran, U.S. allies strike agreement on nuclear deal, Associated Press via Washington Times, April 2, 2015

(??????????????? — DM)

2e738e88a8f2710e720f6a7067008cce_c0-196-4500-2818_s561x327Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, walks through a courtyard at the Beau Rivage Palace Hotel during an extended round of talks, Wednesday, April 1, 2015 in Lausanne, Switzerland. Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program appeared headed for double overtime on Wednesday.

LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — Iran and and six world powers have agreed on the outlines of an understanding that would open the path to a final phase of nuclear negotiations but are in a dispute over how much to make public, officials told The Associated Press Thursday.

The officials spoke outside week-long talks that have busted through a March 31 deadline in an effort to formulate a general statement of what has been accomplished and documents setting down what the sides need to do by the end of June deadline for a deal.

Swiss officials facilitating the negotiations set a news conference for later in the day that was expected to announce the results of the talks

In the search for a comprehensive deal, the U.S. and five other countries hope to curb Iran’s nuclear technologies that it could use to make weapons. Tehran denies such ambitions but is negotiating because it wants a lifting of sanctions imposed over its nuclear program.

 

Categories: Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Javad Zarif, Kerry, Nukes, Obama, P5+1
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 9 Comments

The Shadow of Munich Haunts the Iran Negotiations

April 2, 2015

The Shadow of Munich Haunts the Iran Negotiations, National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson, April 2, 2015

(Hitler did tell the truth occasionally, in Mein Kampf for example. It was generally ignored until too late. “Death to America and Israel” are spouted by the Iranian Supreme Leader at every opportunity. Obama, et al, ignore it. Will Israel be Obama’s Czechoslovakia? And then what?– DM)

Neville Chamberlain

Our dishonor in Lausanne, as with Munich, may avoid a confrontation in the present, but our shame will guarantee a war in the near future.

*********************

Once again our leaders are needlessly appeasing a hostile state that shows them nothing but contempt.

The Western capitulation to Adolf Hitler in the 1938 Munich Agreement is cited as classic appeasement that destroyed Czechoslovakia, backfired on France and Britain, and led to World War II. All of that is true.

But there was much more that caused the Munich debacle than simple Western naiveté. The full tragedy of that ill-fated agreement should warn us on the eve of the Obama’s administration’s gullible agreement with Iran on nuclear proliferation. Fable one is the idea that most people saw right through the Munich folly. True, Europeans knew that Hitler had never once told the truth and was already murdering German citizens who were Jews, Communists, or homosexuals. But Europeans did not care all that much.

Instead, the Western world was ecstatic over the agreement. After the carnage of World War I, Europeans would do anything to avoid even a small confrontation — even if such appeasement all but ensured a far greater bloodbath than the one that began in 1914.

Another myth was that Hitler’s Wehrmacht was strong and the democracies were weak. In fact, the combined French and British militaries were far larger than Hitler’s. French Char tanks and British Spitfire fighters were as good as, or superior to, their German counterparts.

Czechoslovakia had formidable defenses and an impressive arms industry. Poland and perhaps even the Soviet Union were ready to join a coalition to stop Hitler from dissolving the Czech state.

It is also untrue that the Third Reich was united. Many of Hitler’s top generals did not want war. Yet each time Hitler successfully called the Allies’ bluff — in the Rhineland or with the annexation of Austria — the credibility of his doubters sank while his own reckless risk-taking became even more popular.

Munich was hardly a compassionate agreement. In callous fashion it immediately doomed millions of Czechs and put Poland on the target list of the Third Reich.

Munich was directly tied to the vanity of Neville Chamberlain. In the first few weeks after Munich, Chamberlain basked in adulation, posing as the humane savior of Western civilization. In contrast, loud skeptic Winston Churchill was dismissed by the media and public as an old warmonger.

Hitler failed to appreciate the magnanimity and concessions of the French and British. He later called his Munich diplomatic partners “worms.” Hitler said of the obsequious Chamberlain, “I’ll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers.”

The current negotiations with the Iranians in Lausanne, Switzerland, have all the hallmarks of the Munich negotiations.

Most Westerners accept that the Iranian government funds terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. It has all but taken over Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Yet the idea of stronger sanctions, blockades, or even force to stop Iranian efforts to get a bomb are considered scarier than Iran getting a bomb that it just possibly might not threaten to use.

The U.S. and its NATO partners are far stronger than Iran in every imaginable measure of military and economic strength. The Iranian economy is struggling, its government is corrupt, and its conventional military is obsolete. Iran’s only chance of gaining strength is to show both its own population and the world at large that stronger Western powers backed down in fear of its threats and recklessness.

Iran is not united. It is a mishmash nation in which over a third of the population is not Persian. Millions of protestors hit the streets in 2009. An Iranian journalist covering the talks defected in Switzerland — and said that U.S. officials at the talks are there mainly to speak on behalf of Iran.

By reaching an agreement with Iran, John Kerry and Barack Obama hope to salvage some sort of legacy — in the vain fashion of Chamberlain — out of a heretofore failed foreign policy.

There are more Munich parallels. The Iranian agreement will force rich Sunni nations to get their own bombs to ensure a nuclear Middle East standoff. A deal with Iran shows callous disagreed for our close ally Israel, which is serially threatened by Iran’s mullahs. The United States is distant from Iran. But our allies in the Middle East and Europe are within its missile range.

Supporters of the Obama administration deride skeptics such as Democratic senator Robert Menendez and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu as if they were doubting old Churchills.

Finally, the Iranians, like Hitler, have only contempt for the administration that has treated them so fawningly. During the negotiations in Switzerland, the Iranians blew up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. Their supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, did his usual “death to America” shtick before adoring crowds. Our dishonor in Lausanne, as with Munich, may avoid a confrontation in the present, but our shame will guarantee a war in the near future.

Categories: Appeasement, Chamberlain, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Germany, Gulf states, Iran, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Islamism, Israel, Kerry, Khamenei, Munich, Nazis, Nukes, Obama, Peace process, Shiite, Shiite crescent, Sunni, Theocracy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Victory Against ISIS in Tikrit Will Embolden Iran

April 2, 2015

Victory Against ISIS in Tikrit Will Embolden Iran, Front Page Magazine, , April 2, 2015

370x270xtikrit-450x328.png.pagespeed.ic.9xBCkeIFLH

The downside to playing on the same team as the Iranian regime, even in just this one military campaign against ISIS, is that we are helping to enable a far more dangerous power than ISIS to extend its hegemonic dominance throughout the entire region.

****************

Iraq’s defense minister Khalid al-Obeidi is claiming victory over ISIS forces in the city of Tikrit, which ISIS had captured last summer as its forces advanced across large swaths of territory in northern and western Iraq. “We have the pleasure, with all our pride, to announce the good news of a magnificent victory,” Obeidi said. The Pentagon and a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition were a bit more cautious, noting some residual ISIS resistance. However, they too reported that significant progress had been made in wresting control of Saddam Hussein’s birthplace from ISIS’s grip.

The next strategic military objective in pushing ISIS back from the territories it controls in Iraq is to re-take Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul.

Iran supplied significant military support to the Shiite militia forces, who were a major part of the Iraqi counter-offensive on the ground. At the same time, U.S. air strikes seemed to have helped in supporting the Iraqi ground forces’ advance into Tikrit. The precise extent of any behind-the-scenes direct or indirect coordination between the U.S. and Iran is unknown at the present time. However, according to DebkaFile {March 26, 2015), “In the last two weeks of the Tikrit operation, liaison between the US and Iranian military in Iraq was routed through the office of the Iraqi Prime Minister in Baghdad.”

There is little question that without the Iranian-backed Shiite militia and substantial military support on the ground from Iran, ISIS would most likely still be in control of Tikrit today. U.S. airstrikes may have been necessary to soften ISIS’s resistance, but only ground troops with Iran’s support could dislodge them.

The downside to playing on the same team as the Iranian regime, even in just this one military campaign against ISIS, is that we are helping to enable a far more dangerous power than ISIS to extend its hegemonic dominance throughout the entire region.

As General David Petraeus, who certainly knows something about Iraq, told the Washington Post recently:

In fact, I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by — and some guided by — Iran… Longer term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran.

Without downplaying ISIS’s horrific acts, its rapid-fire successes in Syria and Iraq (even with the setback in Tikrit), and its growing allegiances in Libya, Nigeria and areas further away from its home base including Afghanistan, the fact is that ISIS’s ambitions far exceed its current means for achieving them.  ISIS is proficient in using social media for recruitment, propaganda and intimidation purposes, but that can only take ISIS so far.

Iran, by contrast, has built up its military capabilities to the point that it can back up its aggressive threats in the region. And that’s even without the nuclear arms capability that President Obama seems to be willing to risk allowing Iran to achieve in order to secure his legacy with a deal.

As a result, America’s traditional Sunni allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states are doubting whether they can continue to count on the United States for support. And they are taking matters into their own hands, including a decision to form a multinational Arab military force to respond to Iranian aggression and other perceived threats.

As explained by Gamal Abdel Gawad Soltan, a political scientist at the American University in Cairo and quoted by the New York Times: “The U.S. is much less trusted as an ally, as an insurance policy towards the security threats facing the governments in the region, and so those governments decide to act on their own.”

These governments know their neighborhood well and see Iran as a much graver threat to regional peace and security than ISIS. Iran’s military and financial support of the Shiite Houthi rebels in taking control of major parts of Yemen was the last straw. Saudi Arabia on its own initiative decided to launch an air campaign against Houthi positions in Yemen and has not ruled out a ground attack along with the military forces of other Arab countries.

In response to the air and sea blockade of Yemen that Saudi Arabia is imposing on Yemen, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei decided to dispatch “two naval task forces to sail to the Red Sea,” according to DebkaFile (March 31, 2015). “The naval task forces are being sent to draw a sea shield around the Houthi forces to defend them against Saudi-Egyptian assaults. This maneuver was orchestrated by the Al Qods Brigades chief Gen. Qassem Soleimani,” DebkaFile reported.

Soleimani certainly gets around. Earlier this month he popped up in Iraq to lead the Shiite militias in their fight against ISIS. Now the man who fought on the same side as us against ISIS in Iraq is apparently coordinating Iran’s fight to hold onto the Houthis’ gains in Yemen where they forced the American and Saudi Arabian-backed president to flee.

Soleimani is “the puppet master controlling numerous Iranian surrogates in various countries,” said Jim Phillips, Middle East analyst for the Heritage Foundation. “His organization is drenched in American blood,” Phillips added. “It’s infused with an anti-American philosophy and a cooperation with him or his followers would not be on a sustainable basis. The U.S. would regret it.”

The Obama administration is now scrambling to catch up with Iran’s multi-pronged offensives, some of which are under Soleimani’s coordination. Thus, President Obama decided to support the Sunni Gulf coalition and Egypt against Iranian-backed action by the Shiite Houthi rebels to take control of Yemen.

However, the Obama administration’s reactive tactics in dealing with the crisis in Yemen are too little too late. Saudi Arabia is reportedly looking to Pakistan for help in acquiring its own nuclear arms to counter the Saudis’ well-founded suspicions that any deal negotiated by the Obama administration with Iran will not prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear armed power. And while Obama finally lifted the arms freeze he imposed against Egypt two years ago, clearing the way for the delivery of F-16 aircraft, Harpoon missiles and tanks, he also decided to end Egypt’s ability to finance purchases of American arms by drawing credits in advance based on future aid Egypt expects to receive starting in the 2018 fiscal year. Obama also wants to reduce Egypt’s flexibility in what it can purchase with the future military aid. Thus, the Egyptian government can be expected to continue on its course to find other sources for military aid and weapons including Russia, because of doubts that the U.S. will remain a reliable supplier.

The Obama administration has been willing to sacrifice the confidence of its Arab allies, not to mention the United States’ historically close alliance with Israel, in a vain effort to lure the Iranian regime into acting as a responsible party in the Middle East that can help stabilize this volatile region. Instead, Obama should listen to the expert on Iraq, General Petraeus, whose surge victory Obama undermined completely with his precipitous withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011:

The current Iranian regime is not our ally in the Middle East. It is ultimately part of the problem, not the solution. The more the Iranians are seen to be dominating the region, the more it is going to inflame Sunni radicalism and fuel the rise of groups like the Islamic State…Iranian power in the Middle East is thus a double problem. It is foremost problematic because it is deeply hostile to us and our friends. But it is also dangerous because, the more it is felt, the more it sets off reactions that are also harmful to our interests — Sunni radicalism and, if we aren’t careful, the prospect of nuclear proliferation as well.

We can rejoice in the pushback of ISIS out of Tikrit. Perhaps it is a sign of more victories over ISIS to come. However, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we have more in common with the Iranian regime in combatting ISIS in Iraq or Syria than the Iranian regime ultimately has in common with ISIS. They may be bitter enemies in the struggle over which set of fanatical jihadists should get to rule the global Islamic ummah or caliphate they both fantasize about. However, both fervently believe in the fundamental ideological goal of universal Islamic supremacy. And both are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of people to reach that goal, no matter how long it takes them. The difference is that a nuclear-armed Iran would be much more capable of carrying out its jihadists’ apocalyptic vision than ISIS and in a much shorter period of time.

Categories: Caliphate, Foreign policy, Gulf states, Iran, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iraq, Islamic State, Islamism, Middle East, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Peace process, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Sunni, Syria, Tikrit, Yemen
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Khameni to Zarif: Don’t sign! Obama to Kerry: Make them sign! Gridlock

April 2, 2015

Khameni to Zarif: Don’t sign! Obama to Kerry: Make them sign! Gridlock, DEBKAfile, April 2, 2015

Kerry_hotel_nuclear_talks_C_1.4.15John Kerry takes a break from the Lausanne talks

Tehran is not averse to negotiating ad infinitum – so long as the talks go their way. 

So the real gridlock centered on finding a procedure that fitted the US delegation’s instructions to get some sort of a deal signed, and the Iranian group’s directive to sign nothing that could be seen as an accord. So who will give ground first?

***************

It is hard to make out exactly what the seven exhausted foreign ministers of the world powers and Iran were actually talking about in Lausanne this week – especially in the last two days, when the negotiations overran their March 31 deadline for a framework nuclear accord.

The highly-colored reports from the Swiss hotel up until Thursday, April 2, bespoke a mighty battle between the American negotiators led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and the Iranian group, headed by Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, over four key points still at issue between them: the pace of sanctions relief, research and development projects, international inspections – including snap visits to any nuclear facilities they demanded, and, finally, the quantity of low-enriched uranium Iran may retain after the bulk of its stockpile is shipped overseas.

The drama was heightened by the sight of the American delegation marching into a tent set up in the hotel yard “to defeat eavesdropping” for a video conference with President Barack Obama in the White House. Kerry wanted to know whether to carry on the never-ending negotiations, which were looking more and more farcical as the hours ticked by without closure, or quit. This would be tantamount to the failure of the entire structure of nuclear diplomacy.

Obama directed the delegation to carry on talking with the Iranians and disregard the missed deadline as though nothing had changed.

The Secretary of State earlier appeared in an upper hotel window gazing out in the distance. Was he seeing a solution of the impasse visible to no one else?

The French Foreign Minister, Lauren Fabius, fed up with the game playing out between the Americans and the Iranians, left more than once for home. He returned Thursday saying: “We are a few meters from the finishing line, but it’s always the last meters that are the most difficult. We will try and cross them. It’s not done yet.”

Zarif told reporters: “Our friends need to decide whether they want to be with Iran based on respect or whether they want to continue based on pressure. They have tested the other one; it is high time to test this one.”

Those words carried two messages: One that the Iranians were serious when they reiterated in the past weeks that a framework accord for ending the current phase of negotiations was unacceptable, and insisted on the talks carrying straight through to a comprehensive deal by June 30.

The Iranian foreign minister’s second message was a negation of “pressure” – i.e., sanctions, in obedience to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s directive to the delegation to reject the incremental easing of international sanctions and press Tehran’s demand for immediate relief.

That directive was laid down by the ayatollah on February 18, when he determined that “an agreement would be arrived at not in two stages but in one stage to be completed by the end of June 2015 and the agreement would include the removal of all sanctions on Iran.”

The writing was on the wall for all the parties to see. The current deadline crisis could have been avoided by understanding that there was no way the Iranian delegation would ever disobey the supreme leader’s dictates.

Tehran is not averse to negotiating ad infinitum – so long as the talks go their way.

So the real gridlock centered on finding a procedure that fitted the US delegation’s instructions to get some sort of a deal signed, and the Iranian group’s directive to sign nothing that could be seen as an accord. So who will give ground first?

Categories: Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Israel, Javad Zarif, Kerry, Khamenei, Mad Mullahs, Obama, P5+1, Theocracy
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

THE REAL NUCLEAR DEADLINE: JAN. 20, 2017

April 2, 2015

‘THE REAL NUCLEAR DEADLINE: JAN. 20, 2017’
by JOEL B. POLLAK1 Apr 2015 Via Breitbart


(Could be the world’s first unilateral treaty. How pathetic. – LS)

Once again, the Iran deal confirmed by diplomats in Lausanne, Switzerland has failed to materialize. And the only thing more pathetic than the repeated collapse of the talks is the spectacle of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry staying on, even after diplomats from China, Russia, France and Germany have packed their bags and gone home. He is simply unwilling to admit failure. But the Iranian regime is happy to entertain his illusions, and so their delegation has stayed behind, too.

At this stage, the best Kerry can hope for is some kind of memorandum outlining areas of agreement in the broader terms, and a photo-op for the cameras that will minimize the embarrassment to him and to President Barack Obama. He is not in any position to negotiate additional concessions on behalf of the P5+1 (though he may try). He will try to put a brave face on the conference and remind reporters that the final deadline is July 1–then hope Congress sits on its hands until then.

Why are the Iranians holding out? They have won so many concessions–including an agreement to allow continued enrichment at an illegal underground facility–that it seems logical for them to take their winnings off the table. By going “all in,” and demanding immediate sanctions relief as well as the right to retain their enriched uranium stockpile, Iran is–at least theoretically–risking a total collapse of the talks, and potentially missing an opportunity to lock in their gains.

Clearly, the Iranian regime believes that the Obama administration will not go to war, and that it will not back an Israeli strike, either–meaning that Iran probably has the leverage to pick up future negotiations where these talks have left off. All it needs to do is flatter Obama–which is why it is in Iran’s interest to play along with Kerry even as it denies him the prize. But in the background, the Iranians surely understand that there is a real deadline, beyond the talks: January 20, 2017.

That is the last day that President Obama will be in office. And his replacement, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to be less pliable. The trick, for Iran, is to drag the talks out for as long as possible without allowing them to be deferred to the next administration, when its leverage will be diminished significantly. (Recall that Iran released the U.S. hostages on the day President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, after having negotiated carefully with a defeated Jimmy Carter.)

There is another possibility: namely, that Iran could be far closer to a nuclear weapon than the world currently knows. That could explain why Iran keeps ratcheting up its demands every time a deal creeps closer (that, and Obama’s appeasement). Iran may not fear the P5+1 leaving the table because it may already possess much of what the P5+1 are hoping to prevent it from building. Deal or no deal, it could test a nuclear bomb the day Kerry finally goes home–and blame him for leaving.

(If I had to wager a bet, I’d put my money on this possibility. – LS)

Categories: Appeasement
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama’s National Security Director for Iran is Ex-Iran Lobbyist

April 2, 2015

Obama’s National Security Director for Iran is Ex-Iran Lobbyist

April 1, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield

via Obama’s National Security Director for Iran is Ex-Iran Lobbyist | FrontPage Magazine.

No corruption to see here. Just friends helping friends nuke Netanyahu, as Breitbart’s Jordan Schachtel reveals.

The White House brief, which was disclosed by The Daily Beast, listed Sahar Nowrouzzadeh as the National Security Council Director for Iran. Nowrouzzadeh appears to be a former employee of the alleged pro-Tehran regime lobbying group, NIAC (National Iranian-American Council).

Breitbart News has found that a person with the same name has previously written several publications on behalf of NIAC. According to what appears to be her LinkedIn account, Nowrouzzadeh became an analyst for the Department of Defense in 2005 before moving her way up to the National Security Council in 2014.

A NIAC profile from 2007 reveals that Sahar Nowrouzzadeh appears to be the same person as the one who is currently the NSC Director for Iran. The profiles indicate that she had the same double major and attended the same university (George Washington).

Critics have alleged that NIAC is a lobby for the current Iranian dictatorship under Ayatollah Khamenei. A dissident journalist revealed recently that NIAC’s president and founder, Trita Parsi, has maintained a years-long relationship with Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif.

NIAC was established in 1999, when founder Trita Parsi attended a conference in Cyprus that was held under the auspices of the Iranian regime. During the conference, Parsi reportedly laid out his plan to introduce a pro-regime lobbying group to allegedly counteract the influence of America’s pro-Israel and anti-Tehran regime advocacy groups.

Mission accomplished. The White House has been successfully lobbied.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

New documentary asserts Hamas has taken over UNRWA

April 2, 2015

New documentary asserts Hamas has taken over UNRWA

The Center for Near East Policy Research displayed in a new documentary how Hamas exploits children, transforming them into terrorists, and has taken over UNRWA facilities in the Gaza Strip.

Apr 02, 2015, 03:55PM | Rachel Avraham

via Israel News – New documentary asserts Hamas has taken over UNRWA – JerusalemOnline.

Utilizing children under the age of 15 as soldiers is a war crime according to the International Criminal Court at The Hague and is a clear human rights violation that goes contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.   However, a new documentary produced by the Center for Near East Policy Research titled Children’s Army of Hamas shows that Hamas is doing just that.    In the firm, it is noted that 17,000 minors have been reportedly drafted from UNRWA schools in order to become Hamas terrorists.  They are taught by Hamas how to use lethal weapons in special camps.

As one youngster stated in the video, “We’re being trained to be warriors to fight the evil Israeli presence. In this military camp, we studied jihad, determination, to trust Allah and other Islamic values.” Another Hamas child terrorist declared, “We learned weapons training and joined the War Games camp to end the Zionist aggression.” Still yet another child emphasized, “I was trained to be a warrior to liberate my land.” While a great many of the children in the video appear to be teenagers, others look much younger, like around elementary school age.

Hamas terror leaders have confirmed that they exploit children by utilizing them to wage war against Israel. Hamas Education Minister Osama al Mizini added, “Each year, we are progressing. We will develop our programs (war games) to a stage where youngsters will be skilled in weaponry.” Even more disturbingly, Hamas Minister of Religion Ismail Radwan demonstrated that UNRWA is cooperating with Hamas to pursue this cynical aim of exploiting children, proclaiming, “The Hamas Charter is part of the program that we teach—insurrection, faith, and education. The charter outlines our reason to fight. It represents our principles for liberation. Hamas’ relationship with UNRWA is good, very good! We assist UNRWA and Hamas cooperates with UNRWA on many levels. Now a direct connection exists between UNRWA and Hamas.”

“While the world focuses on the dangers of a nuclear Iran, few take notice of the takeover of UNRWA refugee facilities by Iran’s allies, which openly trade humanitarian supplies in exchange for munitions and cement to dig new attack tunnels, running schools whose curriculum is preparing UNRWA pupils for war,” the Center for Near East Policy Research told JerusalemOnline. “New Palestinian school books used by UNRWA explicitly indoctrinate half a million students to take up arms to liberate all of Palestine as the only solution to the Middle East conflict, imbuing them with a reverence for jihad and martyrdom.”

The Center for Near East Policy Research noted that the budget from UNRWA does not come from radical Islamists, but rather donor nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Nevertheless, despite this fact, they emphasized that the Hamas terrorist organization has engaged in military training for children inside of UNRWA facilities and children studying at UNRWA schools are indoctrinated to support terrorism by being taught the values of “jihad, martyrdom, right of return and the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine.”

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The ideological forefather father of the Likud Party, Ze’ev Jabotinsky

April 2, 2015

The ideological forefather father of the Likud Party, Ze’ev Jabotinsky said there was a good retort to opponents of the Jewish people. As Jabotinsky noted in 1911, “Instead of excessive apology and instead of turning our backs to the accusers – as there is nothing to apologize for, and nobody to apologize to – it is long overdue to respond to all current and future accusations, reproaches, suspicions, slanders and denunciations by simply folding our arms and loudly, clearly, coldly and calmly answer,’Go to Hell!’

“Who are we, to make excuses to them; who are they to interrogate us? What is the purpose of this mock trial over the entire people where the sentence is known in advance? Our habit of constantly and zealously answering to any rabble has already done us a lot of harm and will do much more. The situation that has been created as a result, tragically confirms a well-known saying: ‘Qui s’excuse s’accuse’ (He who apologizes condemns himself).

“We think that our constant readiness to undergo a search without hesitation and to turn out our pockets will eventually convince mankind of our nobility; look what gentlemen we are–we do not have anything to hide! This is a terrible mistake. The real gentlemen are the people that will not allow anyone for any reason to search their apartments, their pockets or their souls. Only a person under surveillance is ready for a search at every moment. This is the only inevitable conclusion from our maniacal reaction to every reproach, to accept responsibility as a people for every action of a Jew, and to make excuses in front of everybody.

“I consider this system to be false at its very root. We are hated not because we are blamed for everything, but we are blamed for everything because we are not loved. We do not have to apologize for anything. We are a people as all other peoples; we do not have any intentions to be better than the rest. We do not have to account to anybody; we are not to sit for anybody’s examination and nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them. We are what we are, we are good for ourselves, we will not change and we do not want to.”

Hat tip to Ronn Torossian

Partly taken over from

Ze’ev Jabotinsky: Israel’s Enemies Should Go To Hell!

 

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Dozens of troops disembark at Yemen’s Aden port

April 2, 2015

Dozens of troops disembark at Yemen’s Aden port

Witnesses and port officials report seeing troops of unknown nationality arrive at port hours after Houthi fighters advanced into heart of city.

Reuters

Latest Update: 04.02.15, 14:11

via Dozens of troops disembark at Yemen’s Aden port – Israel News, Ynetnews.

 

Dozens of troops disembarked at a port in Aden on Thursday, hours after Houthi fighters advanced into the heart of the southern Yemeni city, witnesses and port officials said.

It was not immediately possible to verify the nationality of the troops, but a Saudi-led coalition which has been trying to stem advances by the Iran-allied Houthis says it is in control of the waters around Aden.

Houthi forces pulled back from positions in central Aden after air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition at dawn on Thursday, residents of the southern Yemeni port city said.

They said a unit of Houthi and allied fighters, who had advanced in tanks and armored vehicles through Aden’s Khor Maksar district 24 hours earlier, pulled back, although they remained in parts of the neighborhood.

Witnesses said Thursday afternoon that dozens of troops were disembarking at Aden’s port, and that their nationality was unclear.

The Houthis’ recent gains in Aden, the last major foothold of supporters of Saudi-backed President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, have happened despite a week of air strikes by Saudi Arabia and a coalition of mainly Sunni Arab allies.

 

People stand on a tank that was burnt during clashes on a street in Yemen's southern port city of Aden (Photo: Reuters)
People stand on a tank that was burnt during clashes on a street in Yemen’s southern port city of Aden (Photo: Reuters)


Hadi’s foreign minister Reyad Yassin Abdulla appealed on Wednesday for more effective international action to halt the Shiite, Iran-allied fighters before they take over the city entirely.

In the Arabian Sea port city of Mukalla, 500 km (300 miles) east of Aden, soldiers loyal to Hadi clashed on Thursday with militants suspected of being al-Qaeda fighters, residents said. Security officials said the militants in  stormed the center of the city and freed about 300 inmates, including scores of militants.

Meanwhile, food imports into the Arab world’s poorest country are grinding to a halt as the conflict puts fragile supply chains under growing strain and commercial suppliers stay away.

Several ports are in rebel hands and fighting has made travelling by road perilous.

Yemen imports more than 90 percent of its food, including the lion’s share of its wheat and all its rice, to feed a population of about 25 million.

A man stands by the wreckage of a van hit by an air strike in Yemen's southern port city of Aden (Photo: Reuters)

A man stands by the wreckage of a van hit by an air strike in Yemen’s southern port city of Aden (Photo: Reuters)

It has enough basic food stocks for six months in all provinces and wheat stocks stood at 930,100 tons on the day air strikes began, the official Saba news agency said on Monday.

But the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said stocks could start to diminish quickly.

“Although government sources reported sufficient stocks to last the country about six months, the conflict will likely negatively impact distribution, market availability and prices of foodstuffs sooner than earlier expected,” the FAO representative in Yemen, Salah ElHajj Hassan, told Reuters on Wednesday

The collapse of central authority and fighting on several fronts including Aden, one of Yemen’s main ports, has already disrupted imports as well as the processing and distribution of wheat and other staples, food industry sources said.

 

Militants loyal to Yemen's President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi man a checkpoint on a street in the country's southern port city of Aden (Photo: Reuters)
Militants loyal to Yemen’s President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi man a checkpoint on a street in the country’s southern port city of Aden (Photo: Reuters)

“The port is not functioning, it has been a few days now since our imports have stopped and we are not receiving any more wheat,” a source at the Yemen Company for Flour Mills and Silos in Aden said.

“Workers can’t come to work so they are not operating the mills. The fighting and gunfire has stopped them from showing up and the roads are blocked,” he added.

An explosion at a dairy factory at the Houthi-controlled west coast port of Hodaida port on Wednesday morning killed at least 25 people and dealt a blow to food production.

Mohamed Alshamery, manager of the Yemen Company for Sugar Refining in Hodaida, told Reuters his refinery and the port were still operational but fighting was making it difficult to take sugar to market.

Before the conflict, nearly half of Yemenis were ‘food insecure’, lacking sufficient food for their needs, and one in four was undernourished, the FAO said.

An international trade source said it was becoming difficult to deliver shipments of food.

“Houthi militias are in control of the major ports including Aden. Traders are unable to open letters of credit with banks. We are starting to see shipments being diverted to other locations,” he said.

“What this means is that across Yemen they will need to be drawing their strategic stocks.”

Ship tracking data showed only a few ships were located close to Aden, with two bulker vessels most likely to be carrying food supplies anchored off the city’s coast for several days.

“The port of Aden is virtually closed but for some oil shipments which berthed at Aden Refinery. Dry cargo shipments are stopped because no stevedores are available because of clashes,” shipping and logistics agency GAC said.

A spokesman for the UN agency the World Food Program said fighting in Aden had disrupted their loading operations. A local partner was still going ahead with distribution of food to refugees in camps in the Aden area.

In Lahj, north of Aden, authorities loyal to Hadi posted a notice ordering shopkeepers to keep prices at their previous levels and not to hoard their stocks.

Residents in the capital Sanaa and other parts of the country said there were widespread fuel shortages that coupled with heavy fighting and air strikes could also hamper efforts to distribute food.

“Petrol stations have started hoarding fuel. There are queues outside petrol stations and the people are anxious about the war carrying on,” said Ali Salih, a car owner in the central province of Ibb.

The Houthis, allied to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, took over the Yemeni capital Sanaa six months ago and control much of the country, which also faces a southern secessionist movement, tribal unrest, and a powerful regional wing of al-Qaeda based in the centre and east of the country.

Residents also reported air strikes overnight Wednesdat in the coastal town of Shaqra, which is under Houthi control and lies on the coast between Aden and Mukalla.

First Published: 04.02.15, 11:07

Also on BBC

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32157994

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Progressive Plot to Install Barack Obama as World Chancellor Is Going to Fail

April 1, 2015

The Progressive Plot to Install Barack Obama as World Chancellor Is Going to Fail

BY: Andrew Stiles

April 1, 2015 1:51 pm

via The Progressive Plot to Install Barack Obama as World Chancellor Is Going to Fail | Washington Free Beacon.

 

Warning , HUMOR ?!?!

This is what they want.

 

Barring an emergency executive order or a Biden-backed coup, President Barack Obama will only be in the White House for 659 more days. But this reality hasn’t stopped some left-wing pundits from plotting to keep in him in power.

Matt Yglesias writes: “This is so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning, but it is worth saying that while Hillary Clinton is a fine Democratic Party nominee a much more reasonable choice of 2016 standard-bearer would be Barack Obama.”

Obama’s former “body man” Reggie Love has a more ambitious vision. In an interview with BuzzFeed, Love suggested taking Obama’s talents to the international level. “If you look at [Obama’s] approval ratings outside of the US you would assume that he should have run for World Chancellor and not President of the United States,” Love said.

This movement to install Obama as World Chancellor has obviously been in the works for some time. Here’s why it’s going to fail.

Obama’s lack of enthusiasm since getting blown out in the 2014 midterms has been palpable. We can’t blame him for being a little exited about entering the post-presidency phase of his political career. Why ruin things by taking another job? As Hillary Clinton and others have shown, it’s actually pretty easy to get paid lots of money for doing very little work after leaving an important government office.

Writing a memoir, for example, can be extremely lucrative. But it also takes time, especially if, like Obama, you intend to be the first U.S. president to compose a multi-volume opus about your time in office:

  • Volume I: Hope & Change (The Early Years)
  • Volume II: Truth & Reconciliation (The Quest for Affordable Care)
  • Volume III: Regrettable Choices (The Biden Files)
  • Volume IV: Learning to Fight (Reflections on a First Term)
  • Volume V: Beating Romney, Part One (America Redeems Itself)
  • Volume VI: Beating Romney, Part Two (No Mormon, No Cry)
  • Volume VII: Wright Was Right (Dreams of My Reverend)
  • Volume XIII: New Dawn (An Alternative History of the Obama Years)
  • Volume IX: The Arc That Wouldn’t Bend (A Novel)
  • Volume X: Light Footprint (10 Easy Steps to Transform the World AND Lose Weight)

These volumes aren’t going to write themselves. It’s going to require more free time than a World Chancellor could spare. In any event, such a job would require more effort (e.g., building relationships with lawmakers and international leaders) than Obama has shown himself willing to spare in his time as president. He’ll need plenty of time for golfing. And who knows? Maybe he’ll finally develop a competent follow through.

On the other hand, the Obamas appear to be seriously considering relocating to New York City when/if they leave the White House in 2017. Conveniently enough, that also happens to be the site of the United Nations. Americans, as always, should remain vigilant.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »