Pages

▼

Wednesday, July 01, 2020

07/01 Links Pt1: Misconceptions of ‘annexation’ show a concerning level of ignorance; AOC Touts Support from Anti-Semitic Groups for Israel Letter; EU Still Trying to Fund Palestinian Terror-linked NGOs

From Ian:
PMW: The legal basis for applying Israeli law to Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley
Introduction

Israel has announced that it will apply Israeli civilian law to areas of Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley, (the area renamed “the West Bank” by Jordan after 1948), on or after July 1, 2020. Whereas this is seen by some as a hurried political decision, the more fundamental question is, does Israel have the right to do this under international law?

The answer to this question is a clear – Yes.

The League of Nations allocated all of Israel, including these areas, for the purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home in 1922. No other internationally recognized instrument has superseded that decision;
The Arab countries and most of the Arabs resident in British Mandate controlled Palestine, rejected the 1947 UN partition plan, so it has no relevance today under international law.
No other country has a legal claim to that territory;
No state border has ever separated Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley from the rest of Israel;
The application of Israeli law to Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley should not be referred to as “Annexation”, since annexation is the acquisition of territory by one State “at the expense of another State”.

Accordingly, Israel has the right under international law to Israel apply its civilian law to these areas.
Misconceptions of ‘annexation’ show a concerning level of ignorance
The last few weeks have seen a herd mentality take hold and misrepresentations about Israel abound. There has been fevered discussion over Israel’s proposed application of civilian law to parts of Area C in the West Bank. The move is consistently misrepresented as “annexation” and a “violation” of international law. Both allegations are false. The misconceptions betray a concerning level of ignorance. Most importantly, they stand in the way of any informed debate about the pros and the cons of the move.

There is an urgent need to realise that what is being considered is a change to the internal administrative legal framework in certain parts of Area C of the West Bank, which would replace military law with the civilian law that applies throughout Israel. The existing framework was intended to be temporary, but it has been dragged out for 53 years, through decades of failed negotiations. It is regarded as an inadequate and antiquated administration, comprising a confusing patchwork of Ottoman, British Mandate, Jordanian law and aspects of international humanitarian law.

The clamour of allegations that this proposal would violate international law rejects fundamental principles of international law and deploys double standards against Israel. Any legal analysis of the status of the disputed territory cannot ignore the basic principle that a country cannot be said to “occupy” territory that does not belong to another sovereign and to which it has a credible claim of title. The UK certainly does not recognise Palestinian sovereignty over the territory. Israel has the strongest legal claim to the territory, based on a fundamental principle of international law governing the formation of new states and the delineation of their boundaries.

The universal rule for determining borders for emerging states, ‘uti possideitis juris’, dictates that they are established with the administrative boundaries of the prior administrative entity. Israel was preceded by the ‘Mandate for Palestine’, which was established by the League of Nations and administered by Britain. As the only state to emerge from the Mandate in 1948, international law dictates that Israel inherited the Mandate’s administrative boundaries. This principle provides that the territory concerned has been under Israeli sovereignty since Israel’s independence, even during Jordan’s occupation of the territory between 1948 and 1967. While the territory is politically disputed, the legal principle is clear. The term “annexation” is fundamentally misconceived.


The case against a binational state
I believe that it is possible for multicultural countries to succeed, but it is incredibly difficult to say the least, which is why most multicultural states do not succeed. It requires making the vast majority of a country's citizens believe in a national identity that supersedes any racial, ethnic, or religious identity. The only country I know that has been able to do this successfully and last through the centuries is Switzerland, which is largely a country of three distinct ethno-linguistic groups of Germans, French, and Italians. The Swiss Confederation has largely avoided the violence and strife that plagues so many other multicultural states. But as I understand Swiss history, the cantons that make up today's Swiss Confederation united for the sake of collective security to protect their freedom against neighboring imperial powers. Thus, over time, the Swiss have been able to forge a collective identity that has endured to this day.

A similar, but not identical, scenario has played out in Canada. The provinces that make up Canada united largely due to the threat faced by revolutionary America. Nevertheless, the unity of Canada has always remained tenuous, especially in regards to the majority French-speaking province of Quebec, in which many people yearn for independence. There is also the ongoing tension between different regions of the vast country as the needs of each region differ significantly from one another.

Quebec, and to a lesser extent, western Canada, want to preserve what they perceive as their distinct identities. It remains to be seen whether or not Canada will continue to flourish, or if regional, ethnic, racial, and linguistic differences will tear it apart. Moreover, it is almost impossible to export Canadian-style multiculturalism to the Holy Land, where the Jewish and Palestinian peoples have two very distinct narratives and national ambitions, and where there is no sense that a binational arrangement for the sake of collective security is needed.

If Jews and Palestinians were forced to live with each other in the same country, the results would be disastrous and would probably result in Jews being victims of another holocaust. Once such a state was formed, the Jewish people would quickly become a minority, as millions of Palestinian so-called refugees would stream into the country, thereby creating a Palestinian majority, who would attempt to erase any trace of Jewish heritage in the Holy Land. At best, we the Jewish people would be reduced to a persecuted minority, just like many of the persecuted minorities in Muslim countries. At worst, we would be exterminated.



JCPA: The British Mandate Began 100 Years Ago, June 30, 1920 – A Photo Essay
On June 30, 1920, 100 years ago, Herbert Samuel landed in Palestine to assume his duties as Britain’s High Commissioner of the Mandate. He left Palestine in 1925 with one of his last duties attending the opening of Hebrew University. Much took place during his five years in office – firebrand Haj Amin el Hussein was appointed Grand Mufti, Arab rioters attacked Jewish communities, a British “White Paper” limiting Jewish immigration was issued, the Chief Rabbinate was established, and extensive public works were carried out.
The arrival of Sir Herbert Samuel, British Mandate.
“The new era in Palestine. The arrival of Sir Herbert Samuel, British Mandate. High Commissioner [wearing white]. June 30, 1920. Rowboat bringing Sir Herbert Samuel ashore at Jaffa.” (Library of Congress’ caption)

Herbert Samuel was active in British politics and a committed Zionist. At the beginning of World War I, Samuel, then serving in the Home Office, drafted a memorandum, “The Future of Palestine,” which he gave to Foreign Secretary Edward Grey and Chancellor of the Exchequer Lloyd George. He proposed a Jewish state as a “foundation of enlightenment.”1 Little attention was given to the idea by the government until the Palestine front developed into a full-fledged war.

Samuel’s national standing can be deduced by this recruitment poster directed at the Jewish communities in the British Commonwealth, including Canada.

When the war in Palestine ended in 1918, a military government was established. Many officials and officers who were opposed to the Zionist goals, such as Col. Ronald Storrs, discriminated against the Jewish communities in many areas of administration and preferred to respond to Arab demands. “Thoroughly unsympathetic to the Zionist cause, Storrs made sure that, for example, Jerusalem’s Jewish majority was not reflected in the distribution of municipal power,” according to Balfour 100, a site dedicated to the Balfour Declaration centenary.
The Future of Israel's Borders: International Law and Islamic Law. Part I
Today's Palestinian children are taught to hate Jews and glorify -- and handsomely profit from -- violence against them.

It is common today to find references to Palestine as a mainly Muslim Arab state that has supposedly been "stolen" by Jews, or promised but not given to those people who describe themselves as Palestinians. That is an immense misconception, albeit one that seems to influence political and legal thinking internationally, especially among people who would like to believe it.

In a clearer understanding [of international law], Israel's planned move appears to be legal.

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.... [T]he moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." — PLO leader Zuheir Mohsen, the Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977.
The Future of Israel's Borders: International Law and Islamic Law. Part II
This is where the plan for extending Israeli law over more territory becomes simpler to resolve both legally and morally. However many times the Palestinian Arabs have been offered a state, they have chosen to turn it down, rejecting generous peace offers. They have preferred to use terrorism and three wars launched from Gaza in pursuit of their fantasy of destroying Israel. By 2017, they had rejected no fewer than seven peace offers, and this year Mahmoud Abbas turned down the new US-Israeli peace plan.

Fortunately, if Israel were to extend Israeli law to more land, the move could present a great opportunity to end the conflict. The decisive end by Israel to a Palestinian fantasy that should never have been humoured in the first place might finally enable Palestinian leaders finally to start their citizens on a constructive -- rather than a destructive -- path.
Likud minister: Annexation will happen in July after Trump statement
Israel will annex portions of the West Bank in July but only after US President Donald Trump has made a statement on the matter, Regional Cooperation Minister Ofir Akunis (Likud) told Army Radio on Wednesday.

Sovereignty “will certainly happen in July,” but it has to be done in partnership with the US, Akunis explained, noting that Israel and the US were still ironing out their differences on the contours of an annexation plan.

Israeli application of sovereignty “will only happen after “a declaration by Trump,” he said, emphasizing that this would be a new one, which would be issued from the US.

This declaration was initially scheduled for the end of last week, but was then delayed, he explained.

Israel is waiting for that declaration to be rescheduled before it takes any action and to date, it has not yet received word of when that declaration will be, Akunis said.

Last week, senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway spoke about an announcement on Israeli annexation that never happened.

Akunis pushed back at reports that the Jordan Valley would not be included in an Israeli sovereignty plan. He noted that the Jordan Valley has long been considered part of Israel’s sovereign borders dating back to the Allon plan, first put forward in 1967 immediately after the Six Day War by general and Labor politician Yigal Allon, who served as interim prime minister.

Akunis has been outspoken for years about his support for the Jordan Valley's inclusion in Israel’s sovereign borders.

“Of course it has to be in [the sovereignty plan],” he said.

But first and foremost, the population centers in Area C, known as the settlement blocs, had to be secured. This included the Gush Etzion region as well as the settlement cities of Ariel and Ma’aleh Adumim, he explained. He also included the Jordan Valley in that list, even though it was not a population center, because of its strategic value.

He spoke as confusion reigned in Israel with regard to the actual date for an annexation plan or even what the details of the plan would be.
According to the coalition agreement between the Likud and the Blue and White parties, Israel can apply sovereignty to up to 30% of the West Bank as early as July 1, as long as it is done in agreement with the US.
In Hebrew Op-Ed, UK PM Boris Johnson Warns Israelis Against West Bank Annexation
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson cautioned Israel on Wednesday against annexing parts of the West Bank, saying it would violate international law and harm its drive to improve relations with the Arab world.

Israeli leaders decided in May that a cabinet debate on annexation could begin from July 1, raising speculation the government would convene on that date.

But with no agreement yet with Israel‘s main ally Washington on the scope and timing of the move, and talks ongoing, no cabinet session was scheduled for Wednesday.

“Annexation would represent a violation of international law,” Johnson said in an opinion piece for Yediot Ahronot, Israel’s top-selling daily, echoing remarks he made in parliament last month.

“Annexation would put in jeopardy the progress that Israel has made in improving relationships with the Arab and Muslim world,” Johnson wrote, calling for a solution that allows justice and security for both Israelis and Palestinians.




Erielle Davidson: Jordan will gain nothing from confrontation against Israel
One of the greater concerns over Israel’s application of sovereignty to the Jordan Valley is that the move will undermine mutually beneficial Israeli-Jordanian cooperation. Jordan’s King Abdullah II has substantiated some of the worry, declaring earlier this year that if Israel follows through on its plans with respect to the Jordan Valley, it will result in a “massive” confrontation with the Hashemite Kingdom. Others have expressed the possibility that such a move on the part of the Israeli government would jeopardize the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty.

Though applying Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley poses some risk to Israel’s relations with Jordan, it is unlikely that Jordan will gain much from jeopardizing its productive partnerships with both Israel and the United States.

When discussing Israeli-Jordanian relations, it’s important to note that there is a sizeable gap between how Jordan postures itself publicly vis-a-vis Israel in order to placate its Palestinian population and how it conducts itself privately in its relations with the Jewish state. Jordan has benefited considerably from the fact it is one of just two Arab nations to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel.

Cooperation between Jordan and Israel was formalized in a peace treaty just over 25 years ago. However, as a consequence of the treaty’s nod towards normalization, informal relations between the two powers have become particularly poignant within the military, intelligence, and economic realms.

Indeed, on an informal level, Jordan benefits substantially from the Israeli Defense Forces’ presence in the Jordan Valley, a condition that would only be solidified by Israel’s application of sovereignty. Israeli security forces undoubtedly stop terrorists and weaponry from reaching Islamist terror cells in parts of Jordan’s former West Bank which remain under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, Jordan’s “Black September” in 1970, in which Syrian-backed Palestinian militants known as fedayeen attacked the Hashemite monarchy, remains a testament to the unresolved tensions over the East Bank of the Jordan River. Indeed, permanent Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley would ensure one safe border for the Hashemite Kingdom, a benefit it certainly lacks on its Syrian and Iraqi frontiers.






AOC Touts Support from Anti-Semitic Groups for Israel Letter
A congressional letter organized by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and a delegation of progressive Democrats in Congress was endorsed by organizations that call for Israel’s destruction, promote boycotts of the Jewish state, endorse terrorism, and traffic in anti-Semitic rhetoric.

The letter, sent Monday to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, threatens to withhold U.S. security assistance to Israel if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moves forward with a plan to annex parts of the disputed West Bank, an act that "would lay the groundwork for Israel becoming an apartheid state." In addition to Ocasio-Cortez, the letter was backed by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.).

In an internal email circulated to House Democrats and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Ocasio-Cortez lists 10 organizations that support her letter to Pompeo. Most of these groups are prominent leaders of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS), which seeks to wage economic warfare on Israel. One such organization—Defense for Children International – Palestine—has been linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a U.S.- and European Union-designated terrorist organization.

Ocasio-Cortez’s collaboration with groups that have traditionally been seen among Democrats as extremist and outside the bounds of collaboration suggests an escalating fight within the party over not just criticism of Israel, but the acceptability among Democrats of supporting the Jewish state’s destruction through BDS and terrorism.
Why these House Dems refused to add their names to letters against annexation
An overwhelming majority of the 233 Democratic members of the House of Representatives have publicly expressed opposition to Israel’s proposed unilateral annexation of parts of the West Bank — but some holdouts have kept House Democrats from unanimous opposition to the move.

A House letter sent to Israeli leaders, cautioning against an annexation plan Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is looking to pursue in the coming days, has garnered 191 signatures and the backing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Another letter, addressed to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — threatening to condition aid to Israel over annexation — was signed by 12 lawmakers. But the members of Congress who have not signed onto either communique have not done so, they tell Jewish Insider, because of concerns regarding how the letters would impact relations between the U.S. and Israel.

Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-NY), who represents New York’s 22nd congressional district, told Jewish Insider he did not sign onto the letter against annexation because it didn’t strongly oppose conditioning military aid to Israel.

“My concern with the letter is that I believe it’s important that we reiterate and make it very clear that it’s in America’s national security interests to maintain our commitment to security assistance to Israel without conditions,” Brindisi said in a recent interview with JI. “That’s a red line for me.”

Brindisi, who won his seat two years ago in a district President Donald Trump won by more than 15 points, added that he has “concerns” with unilateral annexation of territory in the West Bank because he’s in favor of direct negotiations between the parties.

“What is most important to me is the long-standing permanent relationship between our two countries,” he said. “The security aid that we provide is not symbolic. In my mind, it saves lives, and we need to reiterate that commitment to make sure that it’s clear.”




BBC Jerusalem correspondent again misleads on the Oslo Accords
Listeners may well have been asking themselves at that point why Israel would be pondering the application of Israeli civilian law to towns and villages in Area C if, as Bateman inaccurately claims, it already applies there. As explained by Professor Eugene Kontorovich:

“Today, more than 400,000 Israelis live in West Bank settlements, still governed by an odd patchwork of military regulations. As a result, property is governed by obscure Ottoman land law. Permitting for infrastructure projects is difficult and burdensome. Most Israeli environmental regulations don’t apply.”

Bateman closed his report with yet more unevidenced promotion of the Palestinian talking point according to which the application of Israeli civilian law to Israeli communities in parts of Area C would harm the prospects of a two-state solution.

Bateman: “So it would extend Israeli sovereignty to those areas making them a formal part of Israel and that would be seen to put a huge dent in the prospects of a two-state solution because of course the Palestinians want the whole of the West Bank as part of their future state.”

Bateman refrained from reminding listeners that those “prospects” are exceedingly dim anyway because long before the topic of application of Israeli law to parts of Area C arose, the Palestinians refused to engage in any serious negotiations.

Once again it is evident that Tom Bateman’s reporting focuses on the selective promotion of PLO talking points rather than on providing BBC audiences with the full range of information needed to understand this issue.
State Department: ‘There Must be Justice’ for Slain Jewish Journalist Daniel Pearl
The US State Department called for “justice” one day after Pakistan’s Supreme Court refused to suspend a lower court’s ruling freeing Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was convicted of being part of the 2002 killing in Pakistan of Wall Street Journal Jewish journalist Daniel Pearl, paving the way for him to walk free.

“The United States is watching this case closely. We are aware of reports that the Supreme Court did not stay the Sindh High Court’s decision to acquit those convicted in the 2002 murder of Daniel Pearl,” a State Department spokesperson told JNS on Tuesday. “We understand that the Supreme Court set the case for a hearing on the merits in the coming months.”

The spokesperson noted that “the appeal process continues and that the defendants will remain in custody. The Supreme Court has not yet rendered a decision on the appeal—that will happen after the hearing on the merits.”

The Supreme Court also declined to hear the Pakistani government’s appeal at this time and instead scheduled it for Sept. 25.

In April, Sheikh, along with Fahad Naseem, Sheikh Adil, and Salman Saqib, were rearrested after their convictions were overturned.

The interior ministry at the time said that they would remain behind bars “for a period of three months pending filing of the appeal.”
Top Democrat announces $500M in anti-missile funding for Israel
For Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, the announcement was routine, noting the inclusion of $500 million for Israel’s missile defense in a key defense funding bill.

But it was significant as well in its timing, demonstrating that the party’s mainstream remains committed to funding for Israel’s military at a time that some of its progressive members are calling for cuts.

“The US-Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Program is critical for the safety and protection of Israel, our close friend and ally,” Gillibrand said in an email Tuesday to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I’m proud to fight for this vital program, which will promote stability and help keep countless citizens of Israel safe from missile attacks.”

Gillibrand is the top Democrat on the Armed Service’s Committee personnel subcommittee.

This is the third year that Gillibrand, along with the senior New York senator, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, led advocacy for the missile defense funding, which goes to the Iron Dome, Arrow and David’s Sling programs. The money is written into the National Defense Authorization Act, a must-pass bill.
Muscling in on Dubai’s existing Jewish community, a Chabad rabbi stirs discord
It’s a story as old as Jewish history itself. A community establishes itself, and inevitably splits into the synagogue you go to and the one you don’t, as the old joke goes.

Only this time it’s in Dubai, where a young rabbi from the Chabad Lubavitch movement is facing a backlash and an official reprimand, after a concerted public relations campaign introducing his new congregation in recent weeks persistently neglected to acknowledge the existence of the city’s established but media-shy Jewish community.

It could have been the feel-good story of the summer: the small but vibrant Jewish community of the United Arab Emirates coming out of the woodwork, opening social media accounts and giving interviews about Jewish life in the Gulf.

But local authorities last week ordered the people behind this particular community — a small group that splintered off from the city’s existing congregation — to “immediately” suspend their social media accounts, The Times of Israel has learned.

Rather than do so, however, the maverick group, led by enterprising Chabad rabbi Levi Duchman and his businessman associate Solly Wolf, has merely changed the name, description and profile photos of its Twitter account, which for several weeks created the impression they were the country’s officially recognized Jewish community.

The Twitter account, originally called “Jewish Community of the UAE,” has been renamed “Jewish Community” and no longer claims to be “official” in any way.

The group’s website is still functioning, headed by a “Jewish Community of UAE” logo in English and Hebrew.

A knowledgeable source told The Times of Israel that Duchman, in defying the instruction he received from the Dubai authorities, has angered the powers-that-be in the emirate and is thereby jeopardizing his chances of obtaining for his congregation the formal licensing required for religious groups.
Khaled Abu Toameh: EU Still Trying to Fund Palestinian Terror-linked NGOs
It is easy to understand why Palestinian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are now furious with the European Union. Recently, the EU and its member countries have had the audacity to demand that EU taxpayer money not end up in the hands of terrorists or terrorist organizations.

As far as the Palestinians are concerned, Western donors are not entitled to demand that their taxpayer money not go to EU-designated terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

There are signs, however, that the EU is about to surrender to Palestinian pressure and threats.

This opaque language means that even if a Palestinian NGO applying for EU grants is an affiliate of terrorist groups, or employs individuals from those groups, the EU will, after all, provide it with taxpayer funding --whether designated for emergency responses to COVID-19 or for regular programs, according to NGO Monitor....






MEMRI: Afghan Taliban Reject Reports That Russia Paid Them To Kill U.S. Soldiers, Say They Raised 'Banner Of Jihad' When America Was Sole Superpower
In a statement, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban organization) has rejected media reports that Russia paid the Taliban to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan. It also argued that the Taliban raised the banner of jihad when America was the sole superpower after the end of the Cold War.

Following are excerpts from the statement:
"[The] fact of the matter remains that the past nineteen-year jihad of our believing nation was a miraculous struggle enriched with the sense of freedom, independence and self-determination which has few peers in world history. This jihad of our believing people is not some proxy war from the Cold War era which might have ties to an eastern or western international bloc. Our nation raised the banner of jihad against occupation when the world was gripped by a unipolar order; murmurs were abound about history ending [as argued by academician Francis Fukuyama]; and the courage of even verbally or morally supporting the just struggle of our believing people was sapped from all.

"However, it was only the divine support of the Lord Almighty which blessed our people with unparalleled perseverance and determination as they rose to challenge the world's premier war machine with homemade explosives and in doing so, not only managed to keep alive their just struggle with old rifles, expired ammunition and insignificant resources but also crossed many stages of success along the way.

"This is a fact known and accepted by both friend and foe. Till this date no evidence has been found to show that a foreign country has given the Islamic Emirate any lethal aid. A proof of this claim is that if one was to search for the most effective weapon of the mujahideen of [the] Islamic Emirate, it would show the image of a water container IED or in other words, homemade explosive device.

"Independence and self-reliance to such a degree is an honor which very few liberation movements have been blessed with in the history of humanity, but all praise belongs to Allah, this great honor is what He... [Prophet Muhammad] has bestowed upon our proud people and sincere mujahideen. Now that some western media outlets are out to justify their own failures by attributing the jihadi accomplishments and glory of the Islamic Emirate to other parties by making allegations about support from Russia or other countries, all are fabrications that can neither be backed with evidence nor are they acceptable to anyone with a sound mind or information.




It Is Time For All Nations To Support Extension Of Iran Arms Embargo
In May 2018, when the world learned that Iran had concealed a secret nuclear weapons archive before, during and after negotiations over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), supporters of the nuclear deal were quick to excuse Iran’s nuclear prevarication.

Two years later, with Iran in full breach of its JCPOA commitments, mounting evidence of undeclared nuclear material and sites inside the country, and the UN conventional arms embargo on Iran set to expire in October, it’s time for the United States and Europe to join together in restoring all of the sanctions and restrictions it once put in place to prevent the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism from acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.

The Iran Deal was premised on Iran’s full disclosure of past nuclear weapons-related activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a pledge never to pursue such weapons in the future, and a temporary limit on certain nuclear activities. In exchange, Iran received several strategic benefits, including the end of key international restrictions and embargoes over time.

Last week, the IAEA reported that Iran may be concealing undeclared nuclear material inside the country and is denying the agency’s inspectors access to two undeclared sites possibly connected to Iran’s work on nuclear weapons – a potential breach of Iran’s Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In addition, the IAEA reported that Iran is violating nearly every other nuclear commitment it made in the JCPOA – vastly expanding its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium and heavy water, restarting enrichment at an illicit underground facility and testing advanced centrifuges.


Iran Sentences Former Journalist to Death for Fueling Unrest
Iran has sentenced to death Ruhollah Zam, a journalist-turned-activist captured abroad last year, for allegedly fueling anti-government unrest in late 2017 on social media, Iranian media reported on Tuesday.

The son of a pro-reform Shi’ite cleric, Zam headed Amadnews, which had more 1 million followers on social media before it was suspended by the messaging app Telegram in 2018 after Iran accused it of carrying calls for violence during the protests.

The channel soon re-appeared under a new name.

Last October, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said they had “trapped” Zam, who had been given political asylum in France and was also based in other parts of Europe, in a “complex operation using intelligence deception.”

It did not say where the operation took place.

“Zam has been convicted of corruption on Earth by a Revolutionary Court,” judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili said, according to the Mizan news agency, adding that he could appeal. The charge, used in cases of armed uprising and espionage, is a capital offense under Iran’s Islamic law.






We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
at