Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

07/15 Links Pt1: The Iranian regime is anti-Western and anti-Semitic. Can we trust its nuclear deal?

From Ian:

Douglas Murray: The Iranian regime is anti-Western and anti-Semitic. Can we really trust its nuclear deal?

Nothing has changed in the rhetoric of the Iranian regime in the thirty six years since it came to power. Nothing meaningful has been shown to have altered in its ambitions. But it is the presumption of this deal that the Iranian regime – a regime which continues to boast of its desire to wipe UN member states off the map – is a rational actor. This is in many ways morally as well as strategically bamboozling. If Iran were led, say, by a group of far-right wing white racist Ku Klux Klan members who had seized the country by force I doubt the American administration would regard it as a rational actor whose word on nuclear ambitions would be accepted and their build-up of conventional weaponry permitted. But the Iranian regime is instead a rabidly racist anti-Western and anti-Semitic regime which sponsors anti-Western and anti-Semitic terrorism around the world. The fact that our governments have just signed a deal with them is surprising. The fact that they have done so without any significant political opposition in the UK is damning.
Well now Iran can look forward to a flood of hundreds of billions of dollars of unfrozen assets. Lobbyists in London, Paris, Moscow and Beijing are already in place and limbered up to start promoting business with Iran. Once that show is on the road it is highly unlikely – whatever else happens – that the sanctions so carefully put in place by previous administrations will be reintroduced. What is highly likely is that after a brief interregnum the Iranian regime will start to lie and cheat and cover-up all over again. Will America or Britain be in a position to do much about it then? Will we have the will? What will happen when Russia sells Iran the anti-aircraft system Moscow has wanted to sell for years and which is now back on the table? What about when, in five years time according to this agreement, Iran is allowed to gain further ballistic technology? What about at any point in the next decade when the inspectors have their first refusal of access to a site, or the sense that the real action appears to be happening elsewhere?
Then Iran will have what the Ayatollahs have always wanted – the time to ‘break out’ and develop the weaponry which their leaders have repeatedly threatened to use. Then, or perhaps a long time before then, Sunni powers in the Middle East region who have become increasingly nervous about the unchecked ambitions of Iran and disenchanted with their ‘allies’ in the West, will compete in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. At some point this will mean that the least stable continent in the world will be armed to the teeth with the world’s most dangerous weaponry.
I know that Greece is important. And I know that the manner in which a fox can be killed appears to matter to a lot of people. But it is also possible – just possible – that what has been going on in Vienna in recent days is more important than any of this and that Britain and the world will rue the day that our global interest became so limited and our diplomatic attention-span grew so wretchedly small.

Michael Oren: Why Israel Won’t Be Celebrating the Iran Deal

The present deal with Iran poses a threat not only to Israel, but to the U.S. and the world
In Israel, one of the world’s rowdiest democracies, politicians rarely agree on anything. Which is why their reaction to the nuclear arms deal with Iran is so unique. For the first time in living memory, virtually all Israelis – left, right, religious, secular, Arabs, Jews – are together calling the deal disastrous.
The reasons might not be clear to many readers of the agreement. According to preliminary reports, its 100 pages contain bewilderingly complex provisions for supposedly delaying Iran from making a bomb. There are international inspections of the Iranians’ nuclear facilities but none that would actually catch them off guard. There are limits to the number of centrifuges with which Iran can enrich uranium to weapons grade, but only for a decade during which not a single centrifuge will be dismantled. And Iran can continue to research and develop more advanced technologies capable of producing nuclear weapons even faster. Most mystifying still, the deal recognizes Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear power without demanding that Iran cease promoting war throughout the Middle East and terror worldwide.
For Israelis, though, there is nothing mystifying about this picture. We see an Iranian regime that will deceive inspectors and, in the end, achieve military nuclear capabilities. We see an Iranian nuclear program that, while perhaps temporarily curtailed, will remain capable of eventually producing hundreds of nuclear weapons.
This is a picture that we’ve all seen before. Back in 1994, American negotiators promised a “good deal” with North Korea. Its nuclear plants were supposed to be frozen and dismantled. International inspectors would “carefully monitor” North Korea’s compliance with the agreement and ensure the country’s return to the “community of nations.” The world, we were told, would be a safer place.

Alan Dershowitz: Does this deal prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?

Certainly the words of the Iranians are not the same as the words of Obama. Whose words accurately represent the meaning of the contract we are being asked to sign?
The time has now come to be crystal clear about the meaning of this deal. If it is intended to prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons, the President must say so in the clearest of terms and he must get the Iranians to express agreement with that interpretation. Ambiguity may be a virtue at the beginning of a negotiation, but it is a vice in interpreting and implementing a deal with such high stakes.
Recall that former US President Bill Clinton made similar assurances with regard to North Korea back in 1994 – as the accompanying chart shows. But within a few short years of signing a deal that he assured us would require the dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear program, that country tested its first nuclear weapon. It now has a nuclear arsenal. How can we be sure that Iran will not act in a similar fashion?
The deal with Iran has been aptly characterized as a “leap of faith,” “a bet” and a “roll of the dice” by David Sanger in a news analysis for the New York Times. The gamble is that by the time the most restrictive provisions of the deal expire, Iran will be a different country with more reasonable leaders. But can the world and especially the nations most at risk from an Iranian nuclear arsenal, depend on faith, bets and dice, when they know that the last time the nuclear dice were rolled, they came up snake-eyes for America and its allies when North Korea ended up with nuclear weapons.
The burden of persuasion is now on the Obama administration to demonstrate that Obama was accurately describing the deal when he said that it will “prevent” Iran from “obtaining a nuclear weapon.” It is a heavy burden that will be – and should be – difficult to satisfy.

.@JeffreyGoldberg vs. @PeterBeinart on @jstreetdotorg

Last night there was a very cogent tweet by Jeffrey Goldberg that upset Peter Beinart:

There are two options. If Goldberg is correct, then J-Street calling themselves "pro-Israel" is an absurdity - you cannot be pro-Israel when almost all Israelis disagree.

If Beinart is correct, then I can say with more certainty that I am pro-Palestinian.

After all, according to Beinart, it is up to individuals to define whether they are pro- or anti-something, and objective reality is not relevant.

I support the right of Palestinian Arabs to live in peace and security in any Arab country without discrimination. I support equal rights for Arab citizens of Israel. I support helping the economy of the territories. I am very opposed to Arab discrimination against Palestinians. I condemn how Lebanon and Egypt and Jordan and Gulf countries treat Palestinians as second class citizens.

Therefore, I am pro-Palestinian, by Peter Beinart's definition..

And my pro-Palestinian credentials actually outweigh J-Street's pro-Israel credentials, because I have lots of examples of Palestinians who (among themselves) agree with everything I just wrote, while J-Street will have to dig around the extreme Left of Israeli politics to find those who agree with them concerning Iran.

The fundamental question is whether being "pro-" something is objective or self-defining.

By objective standards, J-Street cannot claim to be pro-Israel if actual Israelis who have to live with the consequences of J-Streets positions consistently disagree with them group.

By Peter Beinart's standards, if someone wants to claim to be pro-Israel then they are. Presto!

College Board AP materials refer to "Jerusalem, Palestine"

From the The AP (Advanced Placement) Art History Curriculum Framework by the (US) College Board:

This seems to be new. It is copyrighted 2015. Other materials in the AP College Board site refer to Jerusalem as if it does not belong to any country, but only this new document seems to specify "Palestine" as to where Jerusalem belongs.

Interestingly, its 2010 Scoring Guidelines for the same topic mentions facts that students may include when discussing the building, and one of them is "The location is also sacred to Jews and Christians, and so the dominant position of the Dome of the Rock implies Islam’s spiritual superiority." Naming Jerusalem as part of a fictional Arab state whose constitution says its official religion is Islam, rather than as the capital of the existing Jewish state, implies the exact same thing.

You can send messages to the College Board from here.

(h/t Ben D)

Gaza war video shows kids were encouraged to play outdoors during air raids

In July 2014, while Israel was attacking terror sites in Gaza, news reports encouraged children to play outdoors.

This report from Jafra pretends to be documenting Gaza kids defiantly playing while bombs explode nearby, as if this was their own idea. In fact the message being given was to encourage children to put themselves in danger, and to frame it to parents as somehow heroic.

Gaza parents didn't care enough to protect their children from the danger of airstrikes - or from the hundreds of Hamas missiles that fell short. .

Dead kids was a Hamas goal of the war, The media and brainwashed parents played their role. Every dead kid is a victory for Hamas.

And now, a year later, Gazans treating their kids like cannon fodder then is paying off as "human rights" organizations like Amnesty are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, now, to make it look like Israel was targeting these kids.

And you simply won't find these NGOs that pretend to care about Gaza kids, like UNRWA or Amnesty or DCI-P, saying a word about how Gazans acted recklessly with their kids' lives a year ago. It's a cultural thing, you know.

Seriously - what kind of parents would allow their kids to play outside when you can see and hear explosions around you?

In contrast, this is what Israeli kids were being told to do by their teachers and parents during Red Alerts (this photo taken in Hod Hasharon).

That's what normal people do to protect their kids in wartime.

And the video that proudly shows "defiant" kids being encouraged to face bombs with laughing and chants is evidence not of bravery, but of child abuse.

(h/t Bob Knot, July 2014)

07/14 Links Pt2: Forget the Palestinians: Arab states have too much else to worry about

From Ian:

Forget the Palestinians: Arab states have too much else to worry about

Eyad Abuchaqra, a prominent Lebanese commentator and TV personality, cites another reason for dwindling interest in the Palestinian issue. “One might call it Palestinitis,” he says. “Arabs realize that there are many other issues that affect their lives, indeed their existence.”
The idea that it is now Iran and not Israel that poses an existential threat [?] to Arabs receives almost daily confirmation with outlandish statements by Khomeinist leaders in Tehran. “Iran is trying to create a Persian Crescent as the core of its empire,” claims Lebanese Interior Minister Nihad Manshouq. “That now represents the principal threat faced by Arabs.”
“Today, it is Iran and not Israel the Arabs ought to worry about,” says Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Afghan Hizb Islami (Islamic Party) who was sheltered, financed and armed by Tehran for decades.
Not surprisingly, Iran’s leaders try to keep the Palestine issue on the front burner by casting themselves as the “liberators of Jerusalem.”
That was the theme of the “Jerusalem Day” events last week presided over by President Hassan Rouhani and inaugurated with a message from “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei. Both men promised to “liberate Palestine” and wipe Israel off the map.
But their show attracted less attention than at any time in the past 30 years. The Khomeinist regime’s TV station in Tehran complained that global media had ignored “Jerusalem Day” but could hardly restrain its jubilation when reporting a small pro-Iran gathering in Jerusalem itself, where some posters of Khamenei were distributed among visitors to the Al Aqsa Mosque.
The Khomeinists missed the irony of Israel being the only government in the Middle East, outside Iran itself, to allow such a demonstration. (h/t Norman F)

UK Jews wary over Labour candidate’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah

Britain’s pro-Israel community is viewing the race for the Labour Party leadership with concern after the UK’s biggest union, Unite, threw its weight behind the hard Left MP, Jeremy Corbyn, who has expressed open support for Hamas and Hezbollah.
Corbyn, MP for the inner city London constituency of North Islington since 1983, was a surprise addition to the leadership race, set for a September vote. Corbyn was encouraged to put his name on the ballot by Labour MPs who are unlikely to vote for him, but felt that the debate should be widened.
But Corbyn’s very difference from the other candidates — former health secretary Andy Burnham, Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper (wife of ousted shadow chancellor Ed Balls, who lost his seat in the May election), and Shadow Health Care and Older People Minister Liz Kendall — has brought him into prominence.
Commentators say that where Israel is concerned, Burnham is the candidate most obviously akin to Labour’s former leader Ed Miliband, who led the party to an unexpectedly heavy defeat to Prime Minister David Cameron’s ruling Conservatives in May’s elections.

Jeremy Corbyn’s cantankerous interview on his ‘friends’ in Hamas

Jeremy Corbyn is finally receiving the scrutiny he deserves. On Channel 4 News this evening, the hard-left Labour leader hopeful was quizzed by Krishnan Guru-Murthy on comments about engaging with ‘friends’ in Hamas and Hezbollah over the Middle East conflict. Corbyn refused to apologise for using the word ‘friends’ and snapped several times at Guru-Murthy for not letting him finish a long-winded answer:
‘I’m saying that people I talk to, I use it in a collective way, saying our friends are prepared to talk.
‘Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process, you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree.
‘There is not going to be a peace proccess unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas and I think everyone knows that.’
The clip of the exchange is worth watching, not least for how easily Corbyn is riled by a perfectly acceptable line of questioning. If Corbyn inexplicably wins the Labour leadership contest, television interviews will become tedious.

Jeremy Corbyn: 'I wanted Hamas to be part of the debate'

From Now Lebanon last Friday:

Hezbollah’s leader directly linked his party’s military campaign in Syria on behalf of the Bashar al-Assad regime to the Palestinian cause, further claiming that all opponents of Iran oppose Palestine as well.

“The road to Jerusalem passes through Qalamoun, Daraa, Hasakeh and other [Syrian battlefields],” Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said Friday in a speech delivered on the occasion of Quds Day, an event created by Iran in 1979 to celebrate opposition to Israel.

The line echoed then Palestine Liberation Organization deputy chief Salah Khalaf's famous statement during Lebanon’s 1975-1990 Civil War that “the road to Jerusalem passes through Jounieh,” in reference to the organization’s fight at the time with Christian militias.

Nasrallah’s comments come as his party’s fighters are engaged in fierce fighting in the Syrian border town of Zabadani, where Hezbollah and Syrian regime troops have suffered mounting losses.

The Hezbollah chief also trumpeted Iran’s role in the region, saying that the Islamic Republic was the only state that posed an existential threat to Israel.

“After God, Iran is the only remaining hope to free Palestine,” he said, admitting that while his party poses a strategic threat to Israel, it could not destroy their archrivals.

“If you are an enemy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, then you are an enemy of Palestine.”

Other excerpts from the speech show that Nasrallah is really trying hard to use hate for Israel as a rallying cry for Arab support of Iran in Syria. "If Syria was lost, Palestine would be lost too," he stated.

Nasrallah tried also to conflate Saudi Arabia with Jews, saying "the road to Jerusalem also goes through Yemen; Saudi Arabia must stop its aggression."

Arabs on social media were scathing. One tweeted back, "You and your masters in Tehran have killed more Syrian children and women in five years than Zionists have killed in 60 years."

Another commenter said, "Iran is looking for Jerusalem in Iraq, and Hezbollah are looking for it in Zabadani, Houthis are looking for it in Aden. Brilliant geographers."

Meanwhile, Nasrallah's leader Ayatollah Khamenei displayed this photo of him trampling an Israeli flag on his website:

Readers outside Australia may be unaware of the ongoing tensions between prime minister Tony Abbott, whose Liberal Party represents mainstream conservative opinion in this country, and the publicly funded national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). Founded in 1929 as Australia’s equivalent of the BBC, the ABC has not, since 1973, derived its revenue from a license fee as does the BBC, but from government revenue raised via taxation. Like the BBC it is a leviathan-like organisation with many branches enabling it to provide a range of broadcasting services ranging from news to music and drama.   Again like the BBC, it is obliged, in return for its privileged status as a publicly funded autonomous entity, to be strictly impartial in its presentation of news and current affairs – an obligation it honours more in the breach than in the observance.

For, like that of the BBC, the ABC’s ethos has been hijacked by leftist liberals, as such heavy-hitting Australian commentators as Tim Blair, Andrew Bolt, and Gerard Henderson have repeatedly shown in their admirable columns. Its news bulletins reveal a marked tendency to highlight, ad nauseam, issues dear to the heart of leftists – these bulletins almost daily give a platform (without balance) to left-wing politicians and lobbyists opposed to the Abbott government’s crackdown on illegal immigration via people traffickers – an issue encapsulated by the terms “stop the boats” and “detention” and by the leftist ABC’s invariable use of the loaded term “asylum seekers” for those attempting to contravene immigration regulations and jump the queue of would-be settlers applying for entry into Australia through proper channels. It reports the situation in Israel and the Disputed Territories less often than does the BBC, but when it does the same Israel-bashing mindset is usually evident, a mindset the ABC shares with the minority ethnic communities’ partially publicly-funded broadcaster SBS.

The catalyst for the current tension between Abbott and the ABC concerns the 22 June appearance of Sydney Islamist Zaky Mallah – who in 2005 was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for threatening to kill Australian Security Intelligence (ASIO) officers – as a questioner in the studio live audience of the ABC’s flagship program Q&A, a panel discussion current affairs program which is similar to the BBC’s Question Time, and just as stacked with leftists. Mallah also made threatening misogynistic tweets such as calling two of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp female journalists “whores” who “needed to be gang-banged” and, referring to Julia Gillard, “Australian Citizenship test: Question: Do you support the throat slash of Australia’s first female prime minister? Please tick YES or NO?” He also tweeted a Hitler quotation: “I destroyed 90 per cent of the #Jews, leaving 10 per cent of them for the world to understand why I killed them (Adolf#Hitler). #Israel.”

By appearing on the programme (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4242255.htm) Mallah was enabled to spew propaganda regarding the government’s anti-terrorism measures and bait Liberal frontbench MP and panellist Steven Ciobo. Mallah declared: “As the first man in Australia to be charged with terrorism under the harsh Liberal Howard government in 2003, I was subject to solitary confinement, a 22 hour lockdown, dressed most times in an orange overall and treated like a convicted terrorist while under the presumption of innocence. I had done and said some stupid things including threatening to kidnap and kill but in 2005 I was acquitted of the terrorism charges. What would have happened if my case had been decided by the Minister and not the courts?”   He proceeded to ask Ciobo whether he (Ciobo) would like to see his (Mallah’s) citizenship revoked and upon receiving an answer implying the affirmative stated: “The Liberals now have just justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight to leave and go to Syria and join ISIS because of ministers like him.”

There has been widespread condemnation of the ABC’s decision to allow Mallah onto Q&A, compered by the spectacularly overpaid Tony Jones (something again reminiscent of how the BBC wastes the public’s money), who has defended the appearance on the grounds that “The ABC’s editorial standards require us to present a diversity of perspectives so that over time no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded, nor disproportionately represented”. The ABC admitted it had made “an error of judgment” in inviting Mallah to join the panel. It transpired that he had been invited on before, but had declined the invitation, the eminence grise reportedly being the program’s executive producer Peter McEvoy. (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/meet-peter-mcevoy-the-faceless-man-behind-the-qa-scandal-20150702-gi3ovu.html)

To compound their egregious blunder, the program-makers arrogantly devoted the following week’s panel discussion to an appraisal of whether prime minister Abbott’s anger with them for allowing Mallah on is justified, with the usual hypocritical claptrap from the leftists on the panel (and nauseating giggles of appreciation from female audience members), but common sense condemnation from veteran journalist Paul Kelly and Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, the latter justifiably asserting that Jones and the producers should be “ashamed” of themselves for providing Mallah with a platform.
Many may well believe that Abbott went too far in ordering his Liberal parliamentary colleagues to boycott Q&A by refusing to appear as panellists. It can be argued that such a ban is counterproductive, silencing right and right-of-centre voices that dearly deserve to be heard. But the ABC, no less than the BBC, has to be brought to account by some means.

From the point of few of Jews and Israel, probably the most salient article on this shabby affair comes from the keyboard of the Jewish, staunchly pro-Israel federal MP Michael Danby, a prominent member of the ALP’s right-wing faction.   In the current edition of the Australian Jewish News Danby writes of Q&A: ‘How often do we see Jews with anti-Israel views paraded on the program? Usually these unrepresentative types use their ethnicity to bag Israel during flare-ups in the Middle East. They have little or no expertise in Middle East affairs … It seems that every time there is a Jewish holiday, our “multicultural”, “sensitive” and “progressive” Q&A baits the local Jews by putting on some hateful extremist… Australia’s 120,000 Jews have been baited by this awful program for far too long… What happens to us first is then inflicted on the rest. Q&A’s long anti-Israel bias is coming home to roost… Giving Mallah a leg-up is not the main problem. The problem is allowing TV producers with hard-line political agendas, operating in the shadows, to distort the public debate, shifting it in a direction that only the “enlightened vanguard” like them, appreciate.’

Quoting the old Polish proverb “the fish stinks from the head,” Danby maintains that “During these times of serious national security issues, the Middle East agenda of Q&A has become of national concern.”

07/14 Links Pt1: Bibi: Iran deal historic mistake for world; Obama: We Stopped ME Nuclear Arms Race

From Ian:

Six world powers adopt nuclear deal with Iran

Formally known as the the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 100-page document amounts to the most significant multilateral agreement reached in several decades. Its final form is roundly opposed in Israel— by the government, by its opposition, and by the public at large.
The JCPOA allows Iran to retain much of its nuclear infrastructure, and grants it the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. But the deal also requires Iran to cap and partially roll back that infrastructure for ten to fifteen years, and grants the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, managed access to monitor that program with intrusive inspections.
In exchange, the governments of Britain, France, Russia, China, the US and Germany have agreed to lift all UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic— once Iran abides by a set of nuclear-related commitments.
The moment Tehran receives sanctions relief— including access to an estimated $100 billion in frozen assets overseas— will be on "implementation day," as one senior administration official put it on Tuesday morning in Vienna. That date is not set, and is entirely reliant on the pace of Iran's initial haste in preparing for life under the deal.
Once Iran has reduced its stockpile to just 300 kilograms of uranium hexafluoride, disconnected and removed some of its infrastructure and neutered its heavy-water plutonium reactor at Arak, the UN Security Council will vote to lift all sanctions at once.
A Joint Commission has been established to adjudicate disagreements in the deal and, if necessary, vote to demand access to a specific site, or to request the reimposition of sanctions. The commission will be comprised of one delegate each from the permanent five members of the Security Council, Iran and the EU.
Negotiators failed to meet the standard of achieving "anytime, anywhere" access that several members of the United States Congress had demanded as a part of any nuclear deal. Instead, in the event Iran objects to an IAEA request for access to a specific site, a "clock" will begin that grants the two sides 14 days to negotiate.

Netanyahu calls Iran deal ‘historic mistake for world’

Criticism of the deal came from both sides of Israel’s political spectrum as the pact, long feared in Israel as paving Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon, was clinched by the sides after years of talks.
“From the initial reports we can already conclude that this agreement is an historic mistake for the world,” Netanyahu said at the start of a meeting with Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders. “Far-reaching concessions have been made in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability.”
Echoing comments he made a day earlier, Netanyahu said the agreement was inevitable when the US was willing to cave to Iranian demands even as Tehran officials led public calls of “Death to America.”
“I would like to say here and now – when you are willing to make an agreement at any cost, this is the result.”
Netanyahu, who has lobbied incessantly against the emerging agreement, said he never opposed the deal, but rather Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon.
“We knew very well that the desire to sign an agreement was stronger than anything, and therefore we did not commit to preventing an agreement. We did commit to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and this commitment still stands,” he said.

Netanyahu convenes security cabinet: Israel not bound by deal with Iran

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday said the nuclear deal reached between Iran and world powers has made the world a much more dangerous place today than it was yesterday.
Netanyahu's comments came as he was set to convene his Security Cabinet to discuss Israel's response to the deal.
"The world powers bet our collective future on a deal with the world's number one sponsor of terror," the prime minister said.
He accused the world powers of gambling that Iran's regime will change in ten years' time when aspects of the deal expire. "The deal gives Iran every incentive not to change," he said. The deal will give Iran a cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars which will fuel its efforts to destroy Israel, he said.
Netanyahu hinted that the military option was still on the table, saying that "is not bound by this deal with Iran because Iran continues to seek our destruction. We will always defend ourselves."

Rouhani derides failure of ‘warmongering Zionist regime’

Declaring that the nuclear deal struck by Iran with world powers meets all of Iran’s aims, President Hassan Rouhani on Tuesday also derided Israel for what he called its “failed” attempts to undermine his country’s interests.
“Do not be deceived by the propaganda of the usurper Zionist regime,” Rouhani said, in a speech in which he declared that “today major world powers recognized Iran’s nuclear program.”
“The Zionist state has failed in its efforts,” he said, speaking live in a nationwide televised address.
He also tweeted: “To our neighbours: Do not be deceived by the propaganda of the warmongering Zionist regime.”

White House spin graphics on Iran contradict each other

The White House released some infographics that purport to show how great the Iran deal is.

Here's one:

Wonderful news! The time it would take for Iran to produce a bomb's worth of material is apparently infinity, because all of its pathways are blocked! How can anyone object?

But then there's another graphic:

Ah, "blocked" and "prevented" is Obamaspeak for "somewhat delayed."

Got it.

.@Amnesty researcher loves terrorists

In the Amnesty video advertising its "#50Days4Gaza" and "Gaza Platform" bash-Israel initiative, we see Amnesty researcher Saleh Hijazi:

Gidon Shaviv once mentioned Hijazi in an op-ed published in YNet:

If Amnesty wants to maintain impartiality, it should disqualify Saleh Hijazi from working on Israeli issues. Hijazi, a Palestinian born in Jerusalem and raised in Ramallah, has a clear lack of objectivity in this regard. In 2005, he worked as a Public Relations officer for the Office of the Ministry of Planning in Ramallah and in 2007 he was listed as contact for the NGO “Another Voice” – under the group's signature “Resist! Boycott! We Are Intifada!”

Hijazi has a “special” conflict of interest with regards to administrative detention in particular. On March 9, 2011, while as a researcher for Human Rights Watch, he spoke at a UN conference where he described how his father was supposedly arrested by the Israeli authorities “when the Israeli military could not find an activist neighbor.” How can Hijazi be impartial when he is simultaneously claiming to be a victim of the very same country on which he is reporting?

Hijazi's bias is actually much more clear.

Once his profile photo on Facebook was Leila Khaled, notorious terrorist and airline hijacker.

More recently Hijazi showed his admiration for Khader Adnan, a hero of Islamic Jihad:

This video shows exactly how much Adnan supports human rights:

Yes, a "human rights" researcher openly admires someone who advocates blowing up Jews.

In any other place or time, this would be enough to get someone fired. But Palestinians who support terrorism and murdering Jews get a free pass - because their cause is perceived as noble by the moral midgets at Amnesty.

Clearly Hijazi is anything but impartial. And clearly Amnesty isn't concerned about it.

Indeed, it might be a job requirement.

(h/t Bob Knot)

HufPo describes the just-announced nuclear deal:

Iran reached a historic deal with six world powers on Tuesday that promises to curb Tehran’s controversial nuclear program in exchange for economic sanctions relief.

The accord was announced on Tuesday by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and the European Union's policy chief Federica Mogherini in a joint statement in the Austrian capital.

"What we have in front of us today ... is the result of very hard work," Mogherini said.

"It is a decision that can open the way to a new chapter in international relations," she continued, "I think this is a sign of hope for the entire world."

The breakthrough comes after months of thorny negotiations between Iran and the so-called P5+1 group -- the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.

Under the deal, Tehran’s nuclear ability would be significantly limited for more than a decade, The New York Times reported. In return, the six world powers would agree to lift international oil and financial sanctions against Iran

Tehran would also allow inspectors from the U.N's International Atomic Energy Agency to seek visits to Iranian military sites as part of their monitoring duties, a senior diplomat told The Associated Press. However, such visits could be denied or delayed by the Iranian government. In such cases, an arbitration board composed of Iran and the six world powers would have to be convened to determine the right of access.

In other words - anytime, anywhere inspections are finished. Iran can delay them indefinitely.

A joke.

In addition, Iran accepted a "snapback" plan that will restore sanctions in 65 days if it violates the accords, Reuters reported.

One that would require unwilling partners like Russia, China and even Germany (which has large financial ties with Iran) to agree with it.

A joke.

What about waiting for approval by Congress? Well, according to Iranian media, there will be an end-run around Congress by getting the UN to agree to these provisions:

The agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), will, according to Iranian officials, be presented to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which will adopt a resolution in seven to 10 days making the JCPOA an official document.

Based on the agreement, which has been concluded with due regard for Iran’s red lines, the world powers recognize Iran’s civilian nuclear program, including the country’s right to the complete nuclear cycle.

The UNSC sanctions against the Islamic Republic, including all economic and financial bans, will be lifted at once under a mutually agreed framework and through a new UN resolution.

None of the Iranian nuclear facilities will be dismantled or decomissioned.

Furthermore, nuclear research and development activities on all types of centrifuges, including advanced IR-6 and IR-8 machines, will continue.

The nuclear-related economic and financial restrictions imposed by the United States and the European Union (EU) targeting the Iranian banking, financial, oil, gas, petrochemical, trade, insurance and transport sectors will at once be annulled with the beginning of the implementation of the agreement.

The arms embargo imposed against the Islamic Republic will be annulled and replaced with certain restrictions, which themselves will be entirely removed after a period of five years.

Additionally, tens of billions of dollars in Iranian revenue frozen in foreign banks will be unblocked.

A total of 800 natural persons and legal entities, including the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), will be taken off sanctions lists.

No longer a joke.

A tragedy - and a blueprint for a new holocaust.

More short term, it means that Hezbollah and Syria's Assad regime will become strengthened, Hamas and Islamic Jihad will enjoy lots more cash, and Iranian state-run terrorism will accelerate worldwide. Until Iran has the weapon to launch against Israel that will make the terror attacks of the past decades seem quaint.

07/13 Links Pt2: BDS' useful idiots at Haaretz; US pathologist says Nisman death likely a homicide

From Ian:

Ben-Dror Yemini: BDS' useful idiots at Haaretz

Omar Barghouti, one of the leaders of the BDS movement, said in an interview recently that he wants Jews to live in peace under Arab democracy. He ignores a long and bloody history of persecution of Jews in Arab countries – and, surprisingly, there are some Israelis who buy that nonsense.
This week Le Monde published an interview with Omar Barghouti, one of the leaders of BDS. His argument, in essence, was that there is no problem with the Jews living as a minority under Arab rule in the exemplary state he aims to create.
After all, the Jews, he explained, "did not suffer in Arab countries. There were no pogroms. There was no persecution. And in general, the Jews thrive as minorities in Europe and the United States." So what's the problem? Please live as a minority under Arab democracy, which is known for its protection of minorities, especially if they are Jews.
The man suffers from double blindness - both to the past and to the present. It's doubtful whether there is a Jewish community under Muslim rule that did not suffer from persecution, with or without any relation to Zionism. The list is long. And the leader of the British Mandate-era Arab Higher Committee, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, was actually a well-known fan of Jews. That's why he apparently led the pogrom against the Jews of Baghdad in 1941, the "Farhud", and from there traveled to Berlin in order to turn more Muslims into Nazis. He also wrote about his plans to destroy all of the Arab countries' Jews.
It's Barghouti's right to spout nonsense. But when he's given such an important platform, he should be asked: Excuse me, what are you talking about? And did you forget the pogroms against Jews in Libya in 1945 and 1948, and in Aden in 1948, and in Morocco, in Damascus, and in Aleppo? Hundreds were murdered, merely because they were Jewish. And if we turn to the present, where exactly are minorities living in peace and quiet in Arab nations? It's possible that Barghouti means the black Muslims of Darfur in Sudan.
How is it that the interviewer did not push him? Well, it turns out that the interviewer is an Israeli, Nirit Ben-Ari. In the past she supported the Israeli-Arab nationalist party Balad. Towards the last elections she published an article supporting the Joint Arab List. She is also an avid supporter of BDS. She asked to interview Barghouti for Haaretz, but he made it clear that he refused to be interviewed for any Israeli newspaper, because of Zionist hegemony.

Eugene Kontorovich: Abe Foxman says that banning the use of public money to support companies that boycott Israel is unconstitutional and illegal. Is he right?

Abe Foxman says that banning the use of public money to support companies that boycott Israel is unconstitutional and illegal. Is he right?
In the latest act of a decades-long fight against discriminatory boycotts of Israel, two states have passed, and several are considering, legislation that protects their taxpayers from inadvertently underwriting such boycotts. Legislation recently passed by Congress denounced “politically motivated” boycotts of Israel.
In recent months, South Carolina has passed a law restricting state contracting with those who boycott on a nationality basis (the law is not limited to Israel; I advised on the drafting), and Illinois will prevent its pension fund from holding stock in boycotting companies. Legislators in these and other states have concluded that the movement to undermine the world’s only Jewish country through boycotts—while professing noble motives—is a thinly veiled form of anti-Semitism.
These laws have bipartisan support, and they passed unanimously. They enjoy the broad support of mainstream Jewish organizations. Yet some, including Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman, have expressed concerns that legislation that “bars BDS activity by private groups” would raise First Amendment concerns.
Such concerns are entirely misplaced. The current legislation by states does not bar any BDS activity and does not otherwise violate the First Amendment. Indeed, these laws are far milder versions of long-standing federal anti-boycott laws that were adopted through the vigorous efforts of the ADL itself and that have enjoyed broad and uncontroversial support ever since.

US pathologist says Nisman death likely a homicide

A US forensic pathologist believes that the late Argentine special prosecutor Alberto Nisman likely was murdered.
“The evidence argues strongly and scientifically against it being a suicide,” Cyril Wecht said in an interview aired by Argentina television’s Channel 13 on Sunday night. “It is much more likely that this was a homicide than a suicide.”
Wecht has been president of the American Academy of Forensic Science and the American College of Legal Medicine, and has performed about 17,000 autopsies. He has consulted on several high-profile cases, including the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
At the request of the Argentine current events show “Periodismo para todos,” hosted by the eminent Argentine journalist Jorge Lanata, Wecht analyzed Nisman’s case photos, videos, studies and forensic reports. Interviewed from Pittsburgh, Wecht said that the position of the gun would have made it difficult for Nisman to shoot himself.
Forensic experts have differed on the cause of death. Many have said it will be difficult to establish one unified version of how Nisman died, with some experts believing it was suicide and others murder.
Prosecutor Viviana Fein has not yet released a final ruling.