Archive for the ‘Obama’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Obama’s Parallel Universe

November 26, 2014

Obama’s Parallel Universe, Front Page Magazine, , November 26, 2014

obama_iran_0117-383x350

[T]here is not a single aspect of Iran’s nuclear program that has stopped advancing. On the contrary, they are making progress by leaps and bounds.

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

You’ve got to hand it to Obama. He is no slouch when it comes to redefining reality.

He can look at an elephant and proclaim it a donkey without a bat of the eye. Or in the case of Iran, look at spinning centrifuges and see no threat.

Over the weekend he told George Stephanapolous that the nuclear deal with Iran, which his negotiators extended for another eight months on Monday without a single concession from Iran, has “definitely stopped Iran’s nuclear program from advancing.”

Welcome to Obama’s Parallel Universe.

Iran continues to spin centrifuges and expand its stockpiles of enriched uranium. It continues to develop new generations of centrifuges that will allow Iran to race to the bomb five times faster than it can today. As we learned earlier this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency even found that Iran was feeding uranium gas into some of these new generation centrifuges in violation of the interim nuclear deal. The U.S. declined to call out the Iranians for cheating.

Iran also continues work on the plutonium bomb plant at Arak, rather than dismantling it as the U.S. initially demanded. It continues to deny full scope inspections and to refuse inquiries from the IAEA to explain its past nuclear weapons-related activities, without which the United States and its allies cannot map the full scope of the Iranian program or verify it.

In fact, there is not a single aspect of Iran’s nuclear program that has stopped advancing. On the contrary, they are making progress by leaps and bounds.

When Stephanapolous played the sceptic and asked Obama whether he could get the deal through Congress, Obama said he was “confidant that if we reach a deal that is verifiable and assures that Iran does not have breakout capacity, not only can I persuade Congress but I can persuade the American people that it’s the right thing to do.”

The problem is, no one believes that is what this deal will accomplish, including the French and German foreign ministers who took part in the months-long farce in Vienna, Austria that gave birth to yet another extension of talks.

Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden told Congress last week that without an “invasive inspections regime” attached to any deal, “I am unwilling to guarantee American intelligence can sufficiently verify the agreement on its own.”

That’s a pretty damning admission. Given the track record so far – massive U.S. and Western concessions on sanctions relief and enrichment, and no meaningful concessions on Iran’s side – it’s unlikely such an inspection regime will ever exist.

Former U.S. Ambassador Eric Edelman told a Washington, DC conference last week that the Western powers have been in “serial retreat” on their negotiating demands toward Iran since the EU-3 first started unsuccessful talks in 2003.

At the start of the current process, one year ago, Secretary of State John Kerry was still talking about “dismantling” Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program.

But in the first stage of talks, the P5+1 (US., UK, France, Russia, China + Germany) swept that demand off the table, caving into Iran’s demand that the great powers recognize a supposed “right to enrich,” which I and others argue Iran forfeited in the mid-2000s when the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions condemning Iran for violating its commitments under the Nonproliferation treaty.

Why would Iran agree to make meaningful concessions when the United States continues to back off its demands and to throw away its trump card: the complex tissue of U.S. and multilateral sanctions that had crippled Iran’s economy and brought it to the negotiating table in the first place?

The Economist published a series of revealing economic charts on the impact of the Iran sanctions in its November 1st edition, drawing on sources from the Economist Intelligence Unit, the Energy Information Administration, the Statistical Centre of Iran, and the Central Bank of Iran.

Once crippling oil and financial sanctions imposed in 2010-2011 began to kick in, Iran’s economy went into a freefall. Iran’s GDP has been gradually expanding for several years. In 2012, the economy went into full recession, retracting by 6%. Consumer prices skyrocketed by 40%, as did the youth unemployment rate. Vehicle production plunged, the currency collapsed, while both imports and exports declined dramatically.

By all accounts, the halving of Iran’s oil exports – a much greater impact than most analysts had expected – resulted in bringing Iran to the table.

But now, all of that is changing.

Mark Dubowitz, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, estimates that real sanctions relief over the first year of negotiations was close to $20 billion – far more than the administration has claimed.

“The Geneva process has turned around Iran’s economy,” he told a Washington, DC conference last week. As a result, “their nuclear intransigence has increased, not decreased.”

Former IAEA nuclear safeguards chief Olli Heinonen told the same conference that the negotiations were “rewarding Iran for its past bad behavior,” and set a “bad example for future proliferators.”

The Iranians “will just lie their faces off to get a bomb,” Senator Mark Kirk (R,IL) added.

On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry declared in Vienna that a final agreement, to be negotiated in the coming months, would “close off all the pathways for Iran to get fissile material for a nuclear weapon.”

The formula was designed to meet a key criterion set down by Democrats in the House and Senate, such as Florida Rep. Ted Deutch, who agree with their Republican colleagues that Congress must set a high threshhold for what an acceptable deal must look like.

For these security-minded Democrats, an acceptable nuclear deal “must dismantle Iran’s centrifuge program to prevent Iran from becoming a threshold nuclear state, create robust verification and monitoring mechanisms to prevent undetectable breakout, force Iran to come clean on its past nuclear activities including possible military dimensions and cover a long enough duration that the regime won’t simply ‘wait it out.’”

If a deal along these lines cannot be reached, “Congress must make clear to Iran that sanctions will be ratcheted up dramatically at the end of the extension period,” he added.

The problem is, Obama has no intention of letting that happen, and has made it clear he will remove additional sanctions by the stroke of his Executive Order pen or by issuing waivers to legislative sanctions. (On pages 5-7 of his excellent testimony before Congress last week, FDD’s Dubowitz outlines “the administration’s plan to circumvent Congress” through executive branch sanctions relief).

Die-hard Obama loyalists in Congress, such as Virginia Democrat Gerry Connolly, argue that a bad nuclear agreement is better than no agreement. “Beware making the perfect the enemy of the good,” he said last week. “Without an agreement, we are condemning the world to a conflict with Iran.”

That in the end is Obama’s hammer. He will accuse anyone who opposes his massive concessions to Iran as a war-mongerer – a charge that Rep. Ted Deutch has tried to tackle head on. “Those who oppose a bad deal do not support a ‘march to war,’ but refuse an agreement that allows Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Want to bet what Obama will be saying about him when he and Kerry finally reveal the terms of the bad deal they want Congress to approve? “They’ve red-teamed this. They will paint their opponents as war-mongers,” Dubowitz says.

Get ready to enter Obama’s parallel universe.

Like Hassan ibn Saba, leader of the 11th century hashish cult fictionalized by novelist Vladimir Bartol, Obama believes himself to be a master of illusion. If you can make people believe the illusion, then the illusion becomes reality. Perception is everything.

So here we go. Obama wants us to watch his hands and repeat after him: Iran is not a threat. We have stopped Iran’s nuclear weapons development. Iran is our ally against ISIS. Iran is a rational regime.

It’s up to us and to Congress to break the spell. Don’t look at his hands but at the fire burning just behind him.

Categories: IAEI, Intelligence, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Kerry, Obama, P5+1, Rouhani, Supreme Leader
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 8 Comments

Humor: Obama picks Maxwell Smart as Secretary of Defense and Gender Equality

November 25, 2014

Obama picks Maxwell Smart as Secretary of Defense and Gender Equality, Dan Miller’s Blog, November 25, 2014

(With Iran, the U. N., Europe, the Non-Islamic State, Ferguson, MO and a bunch of other annoyances, a spot of humor seemed worth attempting. — DM)

Immediately upon hearing of Secretary Hagel’s decision to resign, President Obama began His search for the best available replacement. Today, He announced His eagerly awaited choice for a successor.

I have personal problems.

I have too many personal problems.

Statement of President Obama:

My fellow Americans, as you are well aware, I pledged soon after taking office in 2009 that My administration would be the most transparent ever. In keeping with My solemn vow, I want to tell you this evening about My most important actions over the past few days, and how I decided to take them, to make our already exceptional national security even better.

A few days ago, My very close personal friend and scapegoat Republican colleague, Huck Bagel, informed Me that personal problems compelled him to resign as My Secretary of Defense and Gender Equality. There is, of course, no truth to any of the scurrilous lies that I forced him to resign. Contrary to the unfounded assertions of racist media sources, that’s not the way My administration works. Indeed, I did not even begin My exhaustive search for the best possible candidate to replace him until after I learned of his intentions.

Fortunately for us all, a wise Latina caddy at My Presidential Golf Course — I call her Soto because she reminds me of a Supreme Court justice whom I appointed — had over the years become one of My closest and most trusted advisers. She understood the many problems and opportunities before Me. Based on her superior knowledge of television programs, as well as of the qualification needed for the position, she suggested Maxwell Smart.

If I can do it anybody can

Sure, Mr. President. I can do that!

With my closest friend, mentor and adviser, Valerie Jarrett, I carefully analyzed recordings of the TV programs Soto had suggested, giving them My always intensely focused attention. Val provided her uniquely helpful advice and I then decided to act decisively by deciding that I needed to get smart. I promptly telephoned Mr. Smart and he graciously agreed to serve.

As all of you know, all of My foreign and domestic policies and actions have always been based on this simple but important principle: Don’t do anything stupid. I have not once strayed from it.

Mr. Smart’s exemplary qualifications are subtly but well demonstrated in this video as well as in many others.

As should be obvious, Mr. Smart is highly qualified to lead My Department of Defense and Gender Equality. It is My hope and desire that the Senate will act promptly, in true bipartisan fashion, to approve him. Our very own national security demands it. Although My administration has already taken great strides in transforming My military, We still must move ever forward with My most important national security mission: bringing ever greater gender equality, and hence ever better gender relations, to all of My armed forces. We cannot — and must not — wait to make the changes that you, My dear people, have long been hoping and waiting for!

I fully expect that Mr. Smart will also be useful in achieving My goal of degrading the non-Islamic State and other non-Islamic terror organizations in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. However, it remains my firm conviction that true peace can come only through extended negotiations, with give and take on all sides. As has been shown by Our extended negotiations with Iran over its alleged nuclear ambitions, by giving only a little much can be gained.

Thank you, My America. When you elected Me I promised the changes that you hoped for. Once again, I have responded to your hopes for change. May Allah damn bless you all and bring unto you many beautiful dreams about the wonders I have already wrought and those that I will continue to provide for so long as I remain your beloved leader.

Obama as we know and love(?) him!

ALL of My policies are the best ever

ALL of My policies are awesome!

Categories: Hagel, Humor, Obama
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran’s win-win

November 25, 2014

Iran’s win-win, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, November 24, 2014

(The $700 million per month that Iran will receive is, presumably, in addition to its continuing lucrative relief from business sanctions. While the money continues to roll in and the negotiations continue to plod along, there is no realistic expectation that any final deal will prevent Iran from getting (or keeping) nuclear weaponry. — DM)

Iran will receive about $700 million per month in frozen assets. In exchange, it makes no concessions. Instead, the status quo is maintained with regard to Iran’s nuclear program.

Obama envisages some sort of mega-deal with Iran, pursuant to which the mullah regime helps bring stability to the region. Iran’s posture in the nuclear negotiations would persuade anyone but a fool or a blind ideologue that a meaningful “grand bargain” is not to be had.

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

The deadline for reaching a deal with Iran over its nuclear program expires today without the parties having reached a negotiated agreement. The negotiating period will be extended until July 1 of next year.

This development is being reported as “no deal,” but there actually is a deal of sorts here. According to the British foreign secretary, Iran will receive about $700 million per month in frozen assets. In exchange, it makes no concessions. Instead, the status quo is maintained with regard to Iran’s nuclear program.

In all likelihood, then, Iran’s economy will continue to expand. No longer will it experience the severe bite that caused it to come to the negotiating table. Thus, Iran will have even less incentive to make concessions than it has had in the run-up to the current stalemate.

Meanwhile, Obama will feel pressure to make additional concessions. Clearly, he wants a deal; otherwise he would have walked away in the face of Iran’s intransigence.

Obama wants a deal for his legacy. Two of the three major components of that legacy — Obamacare and Obamnesty — are subject to possible reversal. The third component — pulling out of Iraq — has exploded in his face.

Obama also wants a deal to reduce the likelihood of Israel attacking Iran. Short of a deal, Obama needs the negotiating process to continue for this purpose.

Finally, Obama envisages some sort of mega-deal with Iran, pursuant to which the mullah regime helps bring stability to the region. Iran’s posture in the nuclear negotiations would persuade anyone but a fool or a blind ideologue that a meaningful “grand bargain” is not to be had.

I’ll leave it to the reader to say which of these descriptons fit Obama.

Obama’s desperation has already driven him to make a series of concessions. Lee Smithcatalogues them.

Among the concessions are these:

1. Obama has offered Iran a 10-year sunset period. After 10 years, any deal would be void.

2. Obama has given up on its demands that Iran enrich no uranium at all.

3. Obama has abandoned the demand that Iran must dismantle its centrifuges.

According to Smith, there are also reports that Obama may have given up on demanding that Iran fully disclose its past activities, including possible military dimensions of the nuclear program.

No wonder Iran wants to keep Obama at the negotiating table. The mullahs are in a win-win position. Either the status quo continues and Iran prospers or Obama eventually gives away the store.

The mullahs lose only if Israel attacks. Neither side wants that, so negotiations, such as they are, will persist.

Categories: Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Israel, Kerry, Obama, P5+1
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

McCain: Failed Korea Nuke Negotiators Now Bringing You Iran Talks

November 24, 2014

McCain: Failed Korea Nuke Negotiators Now Bringing You Iran Talks, National Review, Michael Auslin, November 24, 2014

Halifax — As news spreads that the failed Iranian nuclear talks require a second extension, this time for seven-months, U.S. officials at an international security conference here essentially admitted that North Korea was now a nuclear power, underscoring the failure of decades of high-level diplomacy. Yet the White House is doubling-down on its equally suspect negotiations with Tehran.

General Charles H. Jacoby, outgoing commander of U.S. Northern Command and NORAD, told the Halifax International Security Forum that he was treating North Korea as a “practical threat” due to its nuclear and ballistic missile capability that could potentially reach the U.S. homeland. Jacoby did not specify whether this meant that North Korea’s missiles and nukes were an operational threat, nor how he had changed NORAD’s operating posture, if at all. Admiral Cecil Haney, commander of U.S. Strategic Command (in control of all of America’s nuclear weapons), refused to answer whether he also considered Pyongyang a practical threat, but noted that he wanted more focus on trying to understand North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The generals’ comments came just weeks after General Curtis Scaparotti, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, testified before Congress that he believed Pyongyang could build a nuclear warhead and mount it on a ballistic missile.

There is little doubt that America’s policy towards North Korea has failed, and that Pyongyang has played Democratic and Republican administrations alike, promising concessions, making agreements, and playing for time. Time enough to be close to a nuclear break out, which may be imminent. When Pyongyang mates a functional nuclear warhead with a reliable long-range or intercontinental ballistic missile, then two things will happen: first, the nuclear balance in Asia will tip, second, the Iranians will be opening their checkbooks immediately for access to both technologies. Above all, Japan will begin thinking seriously about either dramatically expanding its strike capabilities or maybe even its own nuclear deterrent. After all, given that two decades of American diplomacy resulted in a rogue regime with nukes, how much can the U.S. nuclear umbrella be trusted? Will Washington really be willing to trade Los Angeles for Tokyo? Our ally won’t admit it publicly, but highly doubts it.

To paraphrase: Diplomacy has consequences. Unfortunately, it seems that Washington doesn’t quite get that. Instead, the dialogue dependency trap continues to ensnare our top officials, who convince themselves that talking is always better than the opposite, that rationality and self-interest will ultimately win out. That’s probably true, but the Obama administration’s problem (like the Bush administration’s) is that they don’t understand North Korean concepts of self-interest. Hence, an Asia about to get much more dangerous.

The real dangers of our failed diplomacy were summed up by Senator John McCain in Halifax, who bluntly stated that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons and delivery systems. “It’s a wake up call,” said McCain, who topped it off by looking at the greater danger of Iran. “The same people who negotiated with North Korea are now negotiating with the Iranians,” McCain explained, likely referring to Acting Deputy Secretary of State and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman. Sherman, who is lead negotiator for the flailing Iranian talks, was the point person for talks with the North Koreans back in the Clinton administration, under Madeleine Albright. If McCain is right, then expect years more of failed negotiations and a nuclear Iran sometime this decade or next.

Categories: Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, McCain, Obama, P5+1, Supreme Leader
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Many Iranian Obstacles in the Way of a Strong Nuclear Deal

November 23, 2014

The Many Iranian Obstacles in the Way of a Strong Nuclear Deal, The Atlantic, , November 23, 2014

(Assuming an eventual bad nuke deal, will the U.S. Congress be able to kill it? In a reasonably bipartisan fashion?– DM)

I just want this much‘I just want this much enriched uranium’ (Reuters)

It will be near-impossible, especially after the immigration debate, to sell the Republican-controlled Congress on whatever Iran deal Obama negotiates. But the Democrats won’t be an easy sell, either.

***********

The other day I fell into conversation with a very smart congressman named Ted Deutch, a Democrat from Florida, about his minimum requirements for an Iran nuclear deal. Deutch, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is—like a large number of Democrats—fairly-to-very dubious about the possibility of a true breakthrough with Iran, and fairly-to-very worried about the consequences of a bad deal. (It seems likely, at this moment at least, that the Iran talks will be extended for several more months.)

Democrats such as Deutch will need to be convinced by the Obama administration that it hasn’t been outplayed by Iran. If an accord is eventually reached, and if Obama cannot convince the Democrats that he has delivered to them the toughest possible deal, then Congress will do everything in its power to undo the agreement. The Republicans, of course, are itching to subvert an Obama-negotiated deal, and Democratic support will be important to them as they make their case.

As I’ve written previously, I support a diplomatic solution to the challenge posed by the Iranian nuclear program because such a solution could theoretically achieve, without bloodshed, what a military strike might not achieve with bloodshed. But as I outline in this column, I don’t believe that either the diplomatic solution, or a solution that requires crushing sanctions and the credible threat of force, are overly likely to neutralize this threat. (And yes, it is a threat. An Iran with nuclear weapons would pose an acute challenge to pro-American moderates across the Middle East, and to the cause of nuclear non-proliferation, in particular in the world’s most volatile region. And it would pose a genocidal threat to Israel; please see, in case you haven’t read it yet, John Kerry’s condemnation of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s recently tweeted nine-point plan for Israel’s destruction.)

(One more parenthetical: Of course the Iranian regime wants a nuclear capability. Iran is surrounded by enemies—imagined, in some cases, but real, in others—and it is completely rational for Iran’s leaders to want to deter these enemies with nuclear weapons. Its leaders see what happened to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi, who didn’t have nuclear weapons. And these leaders also have pretensions of empire, by the way.)

The goal of a deal is to make it as hard as possible for Iran to reach the nuclear threshold. Deutch’s analysis focuses on three potential weaknesses. The first is the notion that any agreement to curtail Iranian uranium-enrichment activities would one day expire. “I worry about a time-limited deal, one which remains in place for a 10- or 15-year term,” he said. “What happens after that period? Does Iran then have a free path to a bomb?”

The answer is, yes, Iran would have a free path to the bomb. Ten or 15 or even 20 years might seem like a long time in the U.S., but the people of the Middle East are patient. Any agreement that contains an expiration date is an inadequate agreement, because it will, in essence, grant Iran time-delayed permission to build nuclear weapons.

Deutch’s second concern relates to sanctions relief: “I don’t want to see the Iranian economy prematurely bolstered.” A legitimate fear on the part of skeptics is that the U.S. will agree to lift the most biting sanctions now in place before guaranteeing real progress in the deconstruction of Iran’s nuclear program. “The third issue,” Deutch went on to say, “concerns our ability to access any enrichment, research, or military sites.” He makes the point that the Iranian regime had kept hidden from the world at least two uranium-enrichment facilities, at Natanz and Fordow. “We need access to sites like Parchin which have military dimensions and which the Iranians prohibited us from seeing. If we can’t become comfortable in our knowledge about what they’re doing in nuclear-weapons development, then I’m not comfortable with a deal.”

It seems unlikely that the Iranians will share with the West the true scope of their nuclear-weapons development work. And unfortunately, it seems as if the West is willing to let Iran slide on this important issue. From Reuters:

World powers are pressing Iran to stop stonewalling a U.N. atomic bomb investigation as part of a wider nuclear accord, but look likely to stop short of demanding full disclosure of any secret weapon work by Tehran to avoid killing an historic deal.

Officially, the United States and its Western allies say it is vital that Iran fully cooperate with a U.N. nuclear agency investigation if it wants a diplomatic settlement that would end the sanctions severely hurting its oil-based economy. …

A senior U.S. official stressed that the powers had not changed their position on Iran’s past activities during this week’s talks: “We’ve always said that any agreement must resolve the issue to our satisfaction. That has not changed.”

Privately, however, some officials acknowledge that Iran may never be prepared to admit to what they believe it was guilty of: covertly working in the past to develop the ability to build a nuclear-armed missile—something it has always denied.

Deutch’s position on the matter of Iranian concealment is not particularly hawkish for his party. He is fairly representative of a broad swath of Democratic thinking and, in fact, on important issues he scans less hawkish than the (putatively) most important Democrat, Hillary Clinton. Given what Clinton told me in an interview over the summer, I can’t imagine that she’s overjoyed by reports coming out of the nuclear talks this week. “I’ve always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment,” she said. “Contrary to their claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich. This is absolutely unfounded. There is no such right. I am well aware that I am not at the negotiating table anymore, but I think it’s important to send a signal to everybody who is there that there cannot be a deal unless there is a clear set of restrictions on Iran. The preference would be no enrichment. The potential fallback position would be such little enrichment that they could not break out. So, little or no enrichment has always been my position.”

It will be near-impossible, especially after the immigration debate, to sell the Republican-controlled Congress on whatever Iran deal Obama negotiates. But the Democrats won’t be an easy sell, either.

Categories: Iran, Iran scam, Israel, Kerry, Middle East, Nukes, Obama, P5+1
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

West seen easing demands on Iran atom bomb ‘mea culpa’ in deal

November 22, 2014

West seen easing demands on Iran atom bomb ‘mea culpa’ in deal, Reuters via Yahoo News, Fredrik Dahl and Louis Charbonneau, November 22, 20014

(The past indicates what the future will bring. Since Iran continues to refuse to acknowledge its past efforts to get nukes, and even to permit inspections to determine what it did and is doing now, there is no  reason to assume — or even to hope — that it will permit effective future inspections of its efforts to get and  use nukes. — DM}

Iran has made clear that it is not an issue it is ready to budge on. “PMD [possible military dimensions] is out of question. It cannot be discussed,” an Iranian official said.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano this week said Iran had again failed to provide explanations needed for the inquiry, making clear it has made scant headway in recent months.

**********

VIENNA (Reuters) – World powers will press Iran to cease stonewalling a U.N. atomic bomb investigation as part of a wider nuclear accord, but will likely stop short of demanding full disclosure of any secret weapon work by Tehran to avoid killing an historic deal.

Officially, the United States and its Western allies say it is vital that Iran fully addresses the concerns of the U.N. nuclear agency if it wants a diplomatic settlement that would end sanctions severely hurting its oil-based economy.

“Iran’s previous activities have to come to light and be explained,” a senior Western diplomat said.

Privately, however, some officials acknowledge that Iran would probably never admit to what they believe it was guilty of: covertly working in the past to develop the means and expertise needed to build a nuclear-armed missile.

Iran denies this and says its nuclear program is peaceful.

The six powers face a delicate balancing act: Israel and hawkish U.S. lawmakers – wary of any rapprochement with old foe Iran – are likely to pounce on a deal if they believe it is too soft on Tehran’s alleged nuclear arms activity.

A senior Western official said the six would try to “be creative” in coming up with a formula that would satisfy demands by those who want Iran to come clean about any atomic bomb research and those who say it is unrealistic to expect the country to openly acknowledge it.

The outcome could also affect the standing of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which for years has been trying to investigate what it calls the possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program.

While the global powers – the United States, France, Germany, Russia, China and Britain – seek to persuade Iran to scale back its uranium enrichment program to lengthen the timeline for any bid to assemble nuclear arms, the IAEA is investigating possible research on designing an actual bomb.

The aim is to reach a comprehensive solution to end a 12-year nuclear dispute by a Nov. 24 deadline, though diplomats say it is more likely that the negotiations will be extended.

If an eventual accord does not put strong pressure on Iran to increase cooperation with the IAEA by making it a condition for some sanctions relief, it may hurt its future credibility, according to some diplomats accredited to the agency.

“You don’t want to undermine the integrity of the IAEA,” one said.

2014-11-22T141622Z_1_LYNXNPEAAL04H_RTROPTP_2_IRAN-NUCLEARIranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif arrives at the Iranian embassy for lunch with former European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in Vienna November 18, 2014. REUTERS/Heinz-Peter Bader

The IAEA issued a report in 2011 with intelligence information indicating concerted activities until about a decade ago that could be relevant for developing nuclear bombs, some of which the U.N. agency said may be continuing.

“SIMPLY IRRELEVANT”

Iran has made clear that it is not an issue it is ready to budge on. “PMD is out of question. It cannot be discussed,” an Iranian official said.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano this week said Iran had again failed to provide explanations needed for the inquiry, making clear it has made scant headway in recent months.

“I believe the PMD issue is not a deal-breaker even though it probably should be,” another Western official said. The official added that many inside the IAEA and Western governments shared concerns about the deadlocked investigation and felt uneasy about compromising on the issue.

Iran denies ever harboring any nuclear bomb ambitions and its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a religious decree against atomic weaponry.

Because of this, experts say, it is virtually impossible for the Iranian leadership to make any “mea culpa” about activity geared toward developing nuclear bombs.

Another reason Tehran might be reluctant to admit to any wrongdoing is that it could later be used as a justification for Iran’s enemies to attack it out of “self-defense”.

As a result, the powers are weighing how hard to press it.

A U.S. official said it was “a fine line” that needs to be walked on PMD. The six want to make sure the Iranians address the issue to some extent, but do not want to hit them so hard with it that they feel like they will lose face.

Experts differ on whether Iran must come completely clean: some argue it is necessary to ensure that any such work has since been halted but others say this can be achieved without a “confession”.

Categories: Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Kerry, Nukes, Obama, P5+1
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Column One: Responding to the slaughter

November 21, 2014

Column One: Responding to the slaughter, Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick, November 20, 2014

Jerusalem terror attackTerror attack scene in Jerusalem . (photo credit:KOBI GIDEON/GPO)

The horrible truth is that all of the anti-Jewish slaughters perpetrated by our Arab neighbors have been motivated to greater or lesser degrees by Islamic Jew-hatred.Today Israel is powerless to influence the hearts of our Arab neighbors. But we can influence their minds. We can deter them from attacking us.

The actions set forth above: asset seizure, revenue seizure and citizenship/residency abrogation for terrorists and their dependents are steps that Israel can take today, despite the hostile international climate.

If the government and Knesset adopt these measures, they will rectify some of the damage Israel has inflicted on itself by showing the Palestinians over two decades that they will be rewarded for their aggression.

********************
What we are seeing in Jerusalem today is not simply Palestinian terrorism. It is Islamic jihad. No one likes to admit it. The television reporters insist that this is the worst possible scenario because there is no way to placate it.

There is no way to reason with it.

So what else is new? The horrible truth is that all of the anti-Jewish slaughters perpetrated by our Arab neighbors have been motivated to greater or lesser degrees by Islamic Jew-hatred. The only difference between the past hundred years and now is that today our appeasement-oriented elite is finding it harder to pretend away the obvious fact that we cannot placate our enemies.

No “provocation” by Jews drove two Jerusalem Arabs to pick up meat cleavers and a rifle and slaughter rabbis in worship like sheep and then mutilate their bodies.

No “frustration” with a “lack of progress” in the “peace process,” can motivate people to run over Jewish babies or attempt to assassinate a Jewish civil rights activist.

The reason that these terrorists have decided to kill Jews is that they take offense at the fact that in Israel, Jews are free. They take offense because all their lives they have been taught that Jews should live at their mercy, or die by their sword.

They do so because they believe, as former Jordanian MP Ya’qub Qarash said on Palestinian television last week, that Christians and Muslims should work together to forbid the presence of Jews in “Palestine” and guarantee that “not a single Jew will remain in Jerusalem.”

Our neighbors are taught that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, signed the treaty of Hudaybiyah in 628 as a ploy to buy time during which he would change the balance of power between his army and the Jews of Kuraish. And 10 years later, once his army gained the upper hand, he annihilated the Jews.

Throughout the 130-year history of modern Zionism, Islamic Jew-hatred has been restrained by two forces: the desire of many Arabs to live at peace with their Jewish neighbors; and the ability of Israeli authorities and before them, British authorities, to deter the local Arab Muslims from attacking.

The monopoly on Arab Muslim leadership has always belonged to the intolerant bigots. Support for coexistence has always been the choice of individuals.

Haj Amin el-Husseini’s first act as the founder of the Palestinian Arab identity was to translate The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and serialize them in the local press.

During the Arab jihad of 1936-1939, Husseini’s gangs of murderers killed more Arabs than the British did. He targeted those who sought peaceful coexistence with the Jews.

His successor Yasser Arafat followed his example.

During the 1988-1991 Palestinian uprising, the PLO killed more Palestinians than the IDF did. Like Husseini, Arafat targeted Palestinians who worked with Israel.

Since Israel imprudently embraced Arafat and the PLO in 1993 and permitted them to govern the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and exert direct influence and coercive power over the Arabs of Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority’s governing institutions have used all the tools at their disposal to silence those who support peaceful coexistence with Israel, and indoctrinate the general public in Islamic and racial Jew-hatred.

Much has been made of the recent spike in incitement of violence by Palestinian leaders led by Arafat’s successor Mahmoud Abbas. But the flames Abbas and his comrades are throwing would not cause such conflagrations if they hadn’t already indoctrinated their audience to desire the destruction of the Jews.

You cannot solicit murder among those who haven’t been taught that committing murder is an act of heroism.

Today Israel must take swift, effective action to stop the slaughter. The damage that has been done to the psyches of the Arabs of Jerusalem and their brethren in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, cannot be repaired in a timeline relevant to the task of preventing the next massacre.

This means that for the time being, on the tactical level, Israel’s only play is strengthening its deterrence.

Israel faces two major constraints in meeting this challenge.

First, the European Union and the Obama administration, as well as the US foreign policy elite, are obsessively committed to a policy of empowering the Palestinians against Israel.

The Spanish parliament’s decision to go ahead with its planned vote to recognize the “State of Palestine,” just hours after the massacre at the Bnei Torah Kehillat Yaakov synagogue in Jerusalem’s Har Nof neighborhood shows that the EU’s dedication to strengthening the Palestinians against Israel is entirely unrelated to events on the ground.

They don’t care who the Palestinians are or what they do. For their own reasons they have made supporting the Palestinians at Israel’s expense their top foreign policy priority.

Similarly, US President Barack Obama couldn’t contain his compulsion to pressure Israel even in his statement condemning the massacre. Even there, Obama called on Israelis and Palestinians equally to restrain themselves.

Obama’s unabated hostility toward Israel was brought to bear on Tuesday afternoon when the State Department restated its rejection of Jewish property rights in Jerusalem and its desire to see the homes of terrorist murderers left intact for the welfare of their terror-supporting families.

On Tuesday, Israel’s social media outlets were filled with angry rebukes of Western media outlets from CNN to MSNBC to CBS, to the BBC. All these networks, and many others, did everything in their power to explain away the synagogue slaughter as just another instance of a cycle of violence. That is, they all sought to frame the discussion in a way that would lead their viewers to the conclusion that the slaughter of praying rabbis was justified.

While appalling, the coverage was not the least surprising. The Western elite media’s devotion to their false narrative of Israeli culpability for all the problems in the region is absolute. Networks would rather wreck their professional reputations than tell the truth.

Together with the EU, the American policy elite and the Obama administration, the media place Israel’s leaders in a bind. Every step they take to defend the country and protect the rights of Jews meets with automatic and libelous condemnation.

The other impediment Israel faces in deterring anti-Jewish violence against its citizenry is its own weakness. Since the inception of the phony peace process, Israel has continuously rewarded the Palestinians for their murderous violence against its citizenry.

From Israel’s transfer of control over all the Palestinian population centers in Judea and Samaria, to its forcible expulsion of its own people from Gaza, to its repeated releases of terrorists from prison, to its continued transfer of hundreds of millions of shekels in tax revenues to the PA, Israel has showed the Palestinians at every turn that far from being punished for murdering Jews, they will be rewarded for doing so.

Given the US and European support for the Palestinians, Israeli declarations that there will be no future releases of terrorists have no credibility. If terrorists aren’t killed on the spot, they can assume that they will eventually be released; if not in exchange for an Israeli hostage, Israel will release them in an attempt to placate the White House.

But even with these constraints on its actions, Israel can take steps to deter its hate-filled enemies from attacking.

Since the current campaign of murder is being carried out by terrorists largely acting on their own accord, the measures Israel adopts to stop the attacks should be directed primarily against individual terrorists. As for action against the PA, it needs to be credible, consistent and directed to where it will hurt Palestinian leaders the most: their wallets.

With regard to the individual terrorists, the government has made much of its intention to destroy the homes of terrorists. While it sounds good, there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of this punitive measure, which is a relic of the British Mandate.

Rather than destroy their homes, Israel should adopt the US anti-narcotics policy of asset seizure.

All assets directly or indirectly tied to terrorists, including their homes and any other structure where they planned their crimes, and all remittances to them, should be seized and transferred to their victims, to do with what they will.

If Israel hands over the homes of the synagogue butchers to the 24 orphans of Rabbi Moshe Twersky, Rabbi Kalman Levine, Rabbi Aryeh Kupinsky and Rabbi Avraham Goldberg, not only will justice be served. The children’s inheritance of the homes of their fathers’ killers will send a clear and demoralizing message to other would-be killers.

Not only will their atrocities fail to remove the Jews from Israel. Every terrorist will contribute to the Zionist project by donating his home to the Jewish settlement enterprise.

Just as Israel has repeatedly buckled under US pressure to release terrorists from jail, so it has bowed to US pressure to continue to fund the PA by transferring the tax revenues it collects on goods imported to the PA.

Assuming that the government is too weak to stand up to the Americans, at a minimum it can see that the money is properly used.

To that end, the Knesset should pass a law permitting Israeli terror victims to sue the PA for actual and punitive damages in Israel courts. The sums awarded to the victims should be taken from the tax revenues Israel collects for the PA. The law should apply retroactively to all victims of Palestinian terror carried out since the establishment of the PA in May 1994.

Not only should the law permit Israeli terror victims to sue the PA. It should dictate actions the Justice Ministry must take to assist them in bringing suit.

Israel should also revoke citizenship and residency rights not only from terrorists themselves, but from those who enjoy citizenship and residency rights by dint of their relationship with the terrorists.

Wives who received Israeli residency or citizenship rights though marriage to terrorists should have their rights revoked, as should the children of the terrorists.

Since Tuesday’s massacre, aside from Abbas’s phony condemnation, the Palestinian leadership and public from Fatah to Hamas have been unanimous in their praise for the atrocity.

Today Israel is powerless to influence the hearts of our Arab neighbors. But we can influence their minds. We can deter them from attacking us.

The actions set forth above: asset seizure, revenue seizure and citizenship/residency abrogation for terrorists and their dependents are steps that Israel can take today, despite the hostile international climate.

If the government and Knesset adopt these measures, they will rectify some of the damage Israel has inflicted on itself by showing the Palestinians over two decades that they will be rewarded for their aggression.

If our leaders fail to take these or similar actions, and suffice with complaining about incitement, their condemnations of the murder of Jews will ring as hollow as those sounded by the BBC, Obama and Abbas.

Categories: Antisemitism, Demolitions, Islam, Israel, Jerusalem, Jews, Kerry, Obama, Palestinians, Peace process
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Obama on Ferguson and Jerusalem

November 20, 2014

Obama on Ferguson and Jerusalem, American Spectator, , November 20, 2014

p110414ps-0347

On the one hand, in Ferguson, with an entire population on edge, the president and his attorney general are plainly siding with the lynch mob. On the other hand, when it comes to the Israelis and Palestinians in response to the killing of rabbis in a synagogue, the response is moral equivalence.

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

Moral equivalence on parade.

Ferguson, Missouri, where the facts of the police shooting that killed Michael Brown have yet to be presented by the grand jury, an entire community braces for violence if the “wrong” decision is announced. While waiting, the Obama administration huddled with those who have a history of inciting racial violence and are heading to Ferguson.

In Jerusalem, where the bloody trail of Jihad streams from a synagogue, the response of the Obama administration is to play the moral equivalency card between Palestinians and Israel.

The contrast could not be more stark — or more telling.

First Ferguson: As headlined at The Gateway Pundit reports:

President Obama met with Ferguson protest leaders on November 5th, the day after the midterm elections. The meeting was not on his daily schedule. He was concerned that the protesters “stay on course.”

There was no Oval Office meeting or similar words of encouragement for those supporting either officer Darren Wilson or the simple concept of letting a grand jury work its will without intimidation.

Meanwhile, about Jerusalem, the New York Times tells the story this way:

The Orthodox Jewish men were facing east, to honor the Old City site where the ancient temples once stood, when two Palestinians armed with a gun, knives and axes burst into their synagogue Tuesday morning, shouting “God is great!” in Arabic. Within moments, three rabbis and a fourth pious man lay dead, blood pooling on their prayer shawls and holy books.

The assailants, cousins from East Jerusalem, were killed at the scene in a gun battle with the police that wounded two officers; one died of his injuries Tuesday night. Politicians and others around the world condemned the attack and the rising religious dimension of the spate of violence, which has been attributed mainly to a struggle over the very site the victims were praying toward.

And what was the president’s response? Mr. Obama read a statement in which he said that “too many Palestinians have died,” and “I think it’s important for both Palestinians and Israelis to try to work together to lower tensions and reject violence….We have to remind ourselves that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis overwhelmingly want peace.” There was no summoning of the Israeli ambassador no suggestion for Israel to “stay the course.”

What are we seeing here? It’s very clear and utterly unsurprising. On the one hand, in Ferguson, with an entire population on edge, the president and his attorney general are plainly siding with the lynch mob. On the other hand, when it comes to the Israelis and Palestinians in response to the killing of rabbis in a synagogue, the response is moral equivalence. Moral equivalence uttered while — quite literally, as seen here — Palestinians take to the streets to wave hatchets, and hand out food to gleefully celebrate the murders. Just as, it should not need to be reminded, Palestinians were in the streets celebrating on 9/11 when the twin towers fell and some 3,000 Americans were murdered.

This follows six years worth of the Obama administration absolutely trashing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel itself — whether rudelyleaving Netanyahu waiting around the West Wing while the president went off to dinner, or having an anonymous minion snarking to the Atlantic that Israel’s prime minister is a “chickens–t.” Recall the moment that played out in front of cameras at the 2012 Democratic Convention when it was discovered that somehow, mysteriously, the Democratic platform refused to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel — and it had to be undone while delegates booed? As seen here it wasn’t pretty, the cameras picking up a delegate loudly shouting “no” while displaying an “Arab American Democrats” sign. Not to be forgotten is Obama’s personal history with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi, both of whom have frequently been labeled as anti-Semites.

Thus the vivid illustration of the core of the modern left. A president stands with the lawbreakers in Ferguson as the town braces for riots. At the same time, confronted with the murder of rabbis in a Jerusalem synagogue — another chapter in the war of Islamic fascism against the Jews — he responds with moral equivalence. The Palestinians this…but on the other hand the Israelis that. And so on.

From Ferguson to Jerusalem, this is the mindset of the modern left that is on display. That mindset isn’t just ugly — it’s dangerous.

Categories: Fatah, Hamas, Israel, Israel, Palestinians, Jerusalem, Jihad, Leftists, Moral equivalence, Obama, Palestinians, Two state solution
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Islam between Illusion and Reality

November 20, 2014

Islam between Illusion and Reality,  Enza Ferreri’s Blog,, Cassandra, November 18, 2014. This article is republished with permission.

deceased victim of IS

A new article by our guest writer Cassandra.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Imagine, if you can, a fairy tale where a mother teaches her toddler that wolves are simply big, furry, friendly dogs that love a good cuddle. Although she and her child live in a village, nestled against a hillside, in a lush valley where humans and wolves exist in close proximity to each other, she doesn’t warn her little girl that wolves are dangerous.

Instead, as well as teaching her daughter that wolves are just big, furry, friendly dogs that love a good cuddle, she also teaches her that it is deeply wrong, even evil, to think the opposite. She explains that this is a bigoted way of thinking. It is what the people of the village thought in the past, and it led to warfare and unbridled hatred towards noble, peaceful wolves. So, although now and again news spreads throughout the village that a wolf has taken a child in the night, the mother continues to assure her daughter that it is the worst thing imaginable to even think about being wary of wolves.

It might make for a marginally entertaining fairy-tale: one that I may write some day, but the mother would surely be the villain of the story. In that fairy tale rather than referring to the Big Bad Wolf, it would be more fitting to refer to the Big Bad Mum.

Something similar is happening today in the West in relation to Islam. We see the effect of it whenever its followers do something so atrociously violent that the media cannot ignore it, and our rulers rush out to defend the reputation of Islam by telling us that it is a religion of peace. It would be “Islamophobic” not to think so, and there is nothing worse than that. However, if a Muslim does something good, the good act can, and most likely will, be attributed to Islam. The implication being that Islam is good, and that it only inspires good acts in people.

I am not saying that all Muslims are violent or dangerous. What I am saying is that this new dogma being adopted in the West – that there is nothing negative, violent or threatening in the doctrine of Islam – is not just false, it is also dangerous. To cajole people into thinking that Islam poses no danger to them on penalty of being deemed “Islamophobic” is to force people to irrationally view something which is a potential danger to them as harmless. This puts lives at risk. Since one of the prime duties of government is to protect the lives of the governed, this is a dereliction of duty on the part of our rulers.

But it is more than that, because it also shows that, although they like to portray themselves as people who care about the weak and vulnerable in society, the opposite is true. They do not in fact care about their people – weak, vulnerable or otherwise. What they do care about is maintaining the status of their ideology and quelling opposition to the type of society that they have engineered through mass immigration. If their citizens, old and young, male and female, suffer or die as a result, that is a price worth paying. They are worthy sacrifices to the Moloch that is multiculturalism.

This point was made clear recently here in England where staff members at Rotherham council were reported to have been reluctant to identify the ethnic origin of child abusers for fear of being considered “racist”. They would no doubt have been equally nervous about identifying the religion to which these men belonged for fear of being considered “Islamophobic”. It was later reported that child abuse files went missing from the council’s archives.

Of course there are many peaceful Muslims who do not do everything that their religion demands, but there are many Muslims that are not peaceful and who do follow their religion to the letter. The current UK terrorist “threat level” is set at “severe”, which means that “a terrorist attack is highly likely”. Which supposedly means that one should be particularly vigilant as to “suspicious” behaviour. At the same time, since Islam is a “religion of peace” from which only good actions can possibly come forth, people like the staff members at Rotherham council would supposedly be reluctant to report any “suspicious” behaviour on the part of a Muslim for fear of being deemed “Islamophobic”.

It is the same insidious dogma which has led to the kidnapping and/or murder of well-meaning Westerners attempting to help people in the Middle East, the most recent example of which is the murder of American citizen Peter Kassig. The American president has already taken the opportunity to use the beheading of Mr Kassig by a Muslim who justified his actions in Islamic terms, and who belonged to a group calling itself the Islamic State, to defend the reputation of Islam. President Obama is reported as having said: “ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own”. He failed to highlight the fact that Peter Kassig “adopted” Islam while a captive whose life was at the mercy of his Muslim captors. He also failed to highlight the fact that Mr Kassig had “adopted” the only religion that mandates death for those who apostatise from it.

Others who have followed President Obama’s way of thinking include two female Italian aid workers, Greta Ramelli and Vanessa Marzullo, kidnapped by Muslims in northern Syria. And Theo Padnos, whose story I recommend that you read in its entirety. It shows precisely how the “Islam is a religion of peace” dogma renders people unable to recognise danger.

And, lest anyone should think that this is just a European problem, in the US children are also being indoctrinated in school to believe that Islam is a religion of peace.

We should observe not only the strange phenomenon of Western leaders rushing to defend the reputation of Islam, but also that the West is subtly introducing blasphemy laws when it comes to that religion, under the guise of “hate-speech” laws. In parts of the world where Muslims are a majority, it is anathema to say anything that may tarnish Islam’s reputation. The reputation of the ideology must be maintained at all costs. It is even more important than the human being. As such, the human being may be punished or even destroyed for the sake of preserving the status of the doctrine. That is the kind of society that we are drifting towards. It goes against the worldview developed in the West where the individual is central and respect for the individual trumps – or used to trump – any other ideology, thus producing the notion of freedom of speech. Respect for the individual and respect for freedom of speech are two sides of the same coin.

Leaders in Muslim-majority countries and Islamic leaders in this country fear that Muslims will connect the dots by looking at the effect of Islam across the modern world and reach the common-sense conclusion that it is not a good religion and they will therefore abandon it. Leaders in the West fear that their citizens will look at the effect of Islam across the modern world and reach the conclusion that is not a good religion, and therefore that the multicultural project which feeds its growth here in the West is not a good thing either. Both know that, once the illusions they have fostered are shattered, it will be impossible to reconstruct them.

Categories: Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamic State, Middle East, Multiculturalism, Obama, Political correctness, Terrorism
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Hamas, Abbas, Obama and Islamic savagery

November 18, 2014

Hamas, Abbas, Obama and Islamic savagery, Dan Miller’s Blog, November 18, 2014

Today Palestinian extremists Islamists murdered four Israelis, three of whom were also U.S. citizens, at a Jerusalem synagogue. Several others are in critical condition. Palestinians celebrated their actions and their intended consequences. 

celebratingmurder_20141118_105338

This morning I posted an article by Robert Spencer of Front Page Magazine titled More Beheadings, More Denial at Warsclerotic, of which I am an editor. Mr. Spencer’s article deals with Obama’s response to the recent Islamic beheading of “Abdul-Rahman Kassig, previously known as Peter.” Obama proclaimed that Kassig’s beheading by personnel of the Islamic State “represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith.” As I noted in a parenthetical comment at the top of the article,

(Please see also this article, and others, on today’s Islamic slaughter at a Jerusalem synagogue. “Knives, axes and guns” were used.” Hamas responded with praise for the terrorists who did it. Will Obama, our Islamic “scholar” in chief, declare that such Palestinian “actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith?” He won’t. Nor, of course, will he admit that the Palestinian’s Islamic actions, like those of the Islamic State, do represent Islam.– DM)

Mr. Spencer observed that Islamic savagery comparable to that of the Islamic State could happen in the United States and that

It could happen anywhere that people read the phrase “when you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” (Qur’an 47:4) as if it were a command of the Creator of the Universe. But to point out that simple and obvious fact nowadays only brings down upon one’s head charges of “hatred” and of “demonizing all Muslims,” when in a sane society it would bring honest explanations from Muslims of good will of what they were doing to ensure that no Muslim ever acted on that verse’s literal meaning. [Emphasis added.]

Here’s a pertinent video by Pat Condell:

Continuing with the quotation from Mr. Spencer,

In reality, they’re doing nothing. No Muslim organization, mosque or school in the United States has any program to teach young Muslims and converts to Islam why they should avoid and reject on Islamic grounds the vision of Islam – and of unbelievers – that the Islamic State and other jihad groups offer them. This is extremely strange, given the fact that all the Muslim organizations, mosques and schools in the United States ostensibly reject this understanding of Islam. And even stranger is that no American authorities seem to have noticed the absence of such initiatives, much less dared to call out Muslim groups about this. [Emphasis added.]

On the contrary, instead of calling on Muslim groups to take some action to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future, Obama’s latest denial was even more strenuous in its dissociation of the beheading from Islam: “ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own.” [Emphasis added.]

“Least of all”! As if it were possible that the Islamic State’s actions represented Buddhism, or Methodism, or Christian Science, or the Hardshell Baptists, or the Mandaeans, to greater or lesser degrees, but the most far-fetched association one could make, out of all the myriad faiths people hold throughout the world, would be to associate the Islamic State’s actions with…Islam. The Islamic State’s actions represent no faith, least of all Islam – as if it were more likely that the Islamic State were made up of Presbyterians or Lubavitcher Hasidim or Jains or Smartas than that it were made up of Muslims.

Here’s a video of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim, speaking at Yale University on September 15th. Although more than an hour long, it’s well worth watching and considering. Please see also this article, commenting on her background and views of Islam.

Is Jonathan Gruber still advising Obama?  This video is from left-leaning(?) MSNBC.

Did Obama “steal” His notions about Islam from Gruber, or merely Gruber’s tactics for masking His true beliefs and intentions, this time about Islam rather than about ObamaCare? Did Obama arrive at His notions of Islam and how to present them Himself, based on His own Islamic studies — particularly the propriety of lying to non-Muslims on behalf of Islam? Or is He, again, just sucking up to Iran? In the latter connection, please see this semi-satirical post titled To get a nuke deal with Iran Obama and the Islamist world demonize Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian “peace” process and the “two state solution.”

For years, the Obama Administration has been pushing Israel, hard, to agree to a two state solution with the “moderate” Palestinian Authority (Fatah). Hamas is the Palestinian entity which, in April of this year, formed a quasi-unified government with the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas. Fatah’s alleged moderation, and that of Abbas, is of this type:

Modeate Muslim

Abbas is seventy-nine years old and probably will not last much longer. He has personally encouraged terrorism, most recently when commenting on the killing of a Palestinian, Mutaz Hijazi, who attempted to assassinate Yehuda Glick, an advocate of Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount.

Hijazi was quickly found and killed by Israeli security forces. Abbas responded by promptly writing to his widow:

With anger, we have received the news of the vicious assassination crime committed by the terrorists of the Israeli occupation army against [your] son Mu’taz Ibrahim Khalil Hijazi, who will go to heaven as a martyr defending the rights of our people and its holy places.

Hijazi, it should be stressed, shot Glick, a civilian, at pointblank range. Fortunately Glick now appears to be recovering in hospital.

The assassin’s admirer, Mahmoud Abbas, is the same Mahmoud Abbas about whom President Barack Obama said last March:

I think nobody would dispute that whatever disagreements you may have with him, he has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue. [Emphasis added.]

That was in an interview where Obama, of course, portrayed Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu as the recalcitrant party who needs to “seize the moment” and make peace.

Even if Abbas wanted to reject Islamic terrorism, doing so would be akin to signing his own death warrant.

In a speech in Ramallah on November 11, marking the tenth anniversary of the death of his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, Abbas declared: “He who surrenders one grain of the soil of Palestine and Jerusalem is not one of us.”

This statement alone should be enough for Kerry and Western leaders to realize that it would be impossible to ask Abbas to make any concessions. Like Arafat, Abbas has become hostage to his own rhetoric. How can Abbas be expected to accept any deal that does not include 100% of his demands — in this instance, all territory captured by Israel in 1967? [Emphasis added.]

Abbas himself knows that if he comes back with 97% or 98% of his demands, his people will either spit in is face or kill him, after accusing him of being a “defeatist” and “relinquishing Palestinian rights.”

Abbas was elected for a five year term as President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) on November 11, 2004, until January 9, 2009. However,

due to Palestinian Internal conflict he unilaterally extended his term for another year and continues in office even years after that second deadline expired. As a result of this, Fatah’s main rival, Hamas announced that it would not recognise the extension or view Abbas as rightful president.[6][7][8] [Emphasis added.]

For these and many other reasons, a “two state solution” would ultimately pit Israel and Hamas against either other, more so even that presently. It would result in either the death of Israel — the only free and democratic state in the region — or the death of the  Palestinian  state notion. The United States should agree with Israel that the death of the Palestinian state notion is preferable to the death of Israel. There is no apparent reason to assume, or even to hope, that Obama does.

On a lighter note, this might be better than a two state solution but, due to regional demographics and Israel’s dedication to democracy, would not work either.

Categories: Abbas, Fatah, Gaza, Hamas, Iran, Islam, Islamic State, Israel, Israel, Palestinians, Jerusalem, Kerry, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, Two state solution
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »