Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, July 24, 2015

07/24 Links Pt2: Glick: The irony of the expulsions from Gaza; Phillips: Arming all sides for nuclear war

From Ian:

Different periods in history have different moral challenges. Slavery was one of the major issues of the 19th century. Abolitionists, whether of the religious or the secular variety, were on the right side of history while those who continued to justify this morally repulsive practice were on the wrong side.
Fascism, Communism and imperialism were the evils of the 20th century, from which humanity barely managed to escape. Though hindsight is 20-20, very few critics had the moral wherewithal and sensitivity to identify all three evils as misguided and immoral in real-time. Ernest Hemingway, Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells and many others failed regarding at least one of the three. George Orwell, Arthur Koestler and France’s first Jewish prime minister Leon Blum were some of the few intellectuals and politicians who were right about all three.
The 21st century has its moral challenges as well. One of them is radical Islamism. Recognizing the dangers presented by the various expressions of reactionary, nihilistic Islamic ideology is a prerequisite for fully comprehending the single biggest threat to Western civilization.
Another litmus test for moral rectitude in the 21st century is one’s position on Israel. Those who view the Zionist project favorably and are generally supportive of the Jewish state are on the right side of history. Those who are hypercritical of Israel, favor using boycott, divestment and sanctions to coerce Israel to cave in to the demands of the Palestinians and other Arab nations, or focus solely on Israeli “crimes” while ignoring the violent rhetoric and actions of Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas are failing the moral test of the day.

Debating Michael Walzer’s ‘Islamism and the Left’

Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, and one of the democratic left’s foremost political philosophers. His recent essay ‘Islamism and the Left’ – published in Dissent, the US journal he co-edited for many years – sparked much debate on the left. Fathom invited a range of thinkers to respond critically to the essay in conversation with Michael in our offices in London.
Michael Walzer: Thank you to Fathom for organising this discussion about my essay ‘Islamism and the Left’ which appeared in Dissent earlier in 2015. I know you have all read it, so I am looking forward to hearing your critical responses.
Robert Fine (Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Warwick University): Thanks for your article. The primary explanation that you are using for the Left’s condoning of Islamism is its fear of encouraging Islamophobia. But why should there be such a fear? Firstly, the Left is not afraid in the same way of encouraging anti-Semitism. Secondly, as you showed very well in the article, there is no opposition between being sensitive to Islamophobia and being highly critical of Islamism. So, while I thought your description of the phenomenon was very good, I wasn’t immediately convinced by your explanation that the fear of encouraging Islamophobia is the driving force behind left apologetics for Islamic fundamentalism.
Michael Walzer: You could probably say that the fear of Islamophobia is related to the hostility to Israel. There is this eagerness – I’ve heard this often in the States, I don’t know if it happens here – to describe the Islamic minority in the US, or in Europe, as the ‘new Jews’. Somehow, that gives you license to ignore the ‘old Jews’, and to focus on these ‘new Jews’, and to claim that we must not repeat with them what we did to the ‘old Jews’. But that can lead to any criticism being interpreted as hostility to this minority and a way of targeting this minority. The argument becomes ‘if you are critical of Islam, you are joining hands with the new xenophobes of the West.’

Douglas Murray: Je Suis Charlie? Even Charlie Hebdo has now surrendered to Islamic extremism

Bad news from the continent. In an interview with the German weekly Stern, Laurent ‘Riss’ Sourisseau, the editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo, announced that he would no longer draw cartoons of any historical figure called Mohammed. This follows his former colleague Renald ‘Luz’ Luzier saying a couple of months back that he would no longer draw Mohammed either. ‘Luz’ announced that he was leaving the magazine shortly afterwards.
I don’t judge either of them for this decision. ‘Luz’ happened to be running late for work on the morning that the Kouachi brothers forced their way into the Charlie Hebdo offices and started shooting his colleagues. ‘Riss’ was in the office and took a bullet to the shoulder, bringing him to the floor where he lay – playing dead – while the sharia-blasphemy force finished off his colleagues. This would be enough to have made most people retreat into silence for the rest of their lives. But both men stuck with the publication through the immediate aftermath of the atrocity and asserted their right to keep publishing depictions of Mohammed.
Who knows why they have stopped now? Perhaps the jokes are a little less funny now there are so many dead bodies. The cost-benefits calculus of putting Mo in an issue would lead anyone towards wanting a slightly quieter life and wondering if it wouldn’t be better if, say, that potential Mo gag became another Pope gag. And I don’t doubt that there must be something sickening about most of the free world patting you on the back and saying ‘Je Suis Charlie’ only to show immediately and continually that they very clearly are not. But the reasons ‘Riss’ gives sound unconvincing to me. The reality is that intimidation and terrorism work. It is the reason why every major publication in the Western world failed to do what Charlie Hebdo had done. And it is the reason why, from Copenhagen to Texas, the people with guns keep making themselves felt and everyone else keeps backing down. Of course we all say that they won’t win (‘Je Suis Charlie’). But they are winning, and at this rate they will win.

On Sunday we will mark Tisha B'Av (pushed off a day so as not to be on Shabbat.) It is the saddest day of the Jewish calendar, one that marks several tragedies that happened on that day. mostly the destruction of the Temples.

Usually I write a historical post on Tisha B'Av.

But this year it is hard to concentrate on anything but the danger of nuclear weapons being built for the purpose of destroying Israel.

The genocidal words from Iranian leaders indicate that destroying Israel is their top priority - not the economy, not the war in Iraq, but destroying Israel. They have dedicated an annual holiday just to call for Israel's destruction. They have ensured that even during sanctions, their payments to Hezbollah remain sacred.

But Israel has a much larger problem.

The US allowed this situation to happen. It was not just naivete in negotiating skills, although that played a part. If the White House truly wanted to minimize the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, it would not have given up concessions the way it did. It would not have communicated its message that the military option is impossible. It would not have publicly defended Iran's cheating on its existing promises.

No, the Obama administration has made a conscious decision that a nation that encourages chants of "Death to America" is a better strategic partner than Israel (and the Gulf states.)

That goal of a long-term alliance with a crazed Islamic theocracy was more important than the goal of erasing nuclear weapons capability. Demands from Iran during the negotiations were not treated with derision but with the respect of a would-be suitor. "Well, of course Iran cannot be expected to cave on demand X, Y and Z - it would not be fair!"

The situation is mind boggling. And now we are in a lose-lose situation, where the options have dwindled down to a nearly meaningless choice. Because President Obama chose the priorities, and those priorities do not include Israel.

Taking a long-term view, this is the direction that the US is going anyway. College students are being poisoned against Israel and they are the leaders of tomorrow. This blog and many others regularly point out the hypocrisy of the "liberals" who embrace Iran and Hamas but it does not make a dent - logic does not enter the picture. As mainstream media uncritically parrots the lies of the Arabs, we can expect the trend to be less and less sympathy to Israel in the coming decades - and more sympathy for those who want to destroy Israel. The US will act like Europe in the not-too-distant future. Israel will be alone, again.

Perhaps prayer on Tisha B'Av is the most logical response.

Have a meaningful fast.

Here are my previous Tisha B'Av posts:

2005: A sad anniversary
2006: A reason to keep mourning on Tisha B'Av
2007: Tisha B'Av, 1948
2008: Weeping over the ruins of Jerusalem
2009: The Kotel, 1912
2010: A reason to cry
2011: Judaism's holiest site is being desecrated today
2012: Documentary on Israel's disengagement of Gaza
2013: The Churban underneath the Mount
2014: 2000 years of mourning for the Temple

I will not be posting anything until Sunday afternoon EDT.

From Iran's FARS News:

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif underlined that Tehran's ballistic missile production and use is no violation of the nuclear agreement between the country and the world powers.
"Using the ballistic missiles doesn’t violate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and it is a violation of a paragraph in the annex of the (UN Security Council) Resolution (2231) which is non-binding," Zarif said in response to questions by legislators in an open session of the parliament in Tehran on Tuesday.

"This paragraph (of the annex) speaks about missiles with nuclear warheads capability and since we don’t design any of our missiles for carrying nuclear weapons, therefore, this paragraph is not related to us at all," he added

This is yet another lie.

From the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

Iran’s Shahab 3 & 3M missiles which have a diameter of 125 cm and a range in excess of 900 km with a payload of 1,000 kg would be able to deliver a nuclear warhead to many of the Middle East capitals and high-value targets. Comparison of the potential ranges of the Iran Shahab missiles versus the Israeli Jericho 2 missile is made. It was found that if Iran launches the Shahab-3M from the Tabriz missile site, carrying a 20kt warhead, it can potentially reach Tel Aviv.

And the Shahab-3 has little military value:

Deploying Ballistic Missiles against military targets would require a number that is very likely to be beyond the current Inventory in Iran. Presently the Shahab Missile is known to have a CEP (Circular Error Probability) greater than 500m, which is large compared to the lethal radius of hardened structures, a large number of missiles with unitary warheads will be required to ensure destruction of such targets. For example a psi of 40 is required to damage a reinforced command center, with a 1000 kg TNT explosive weight the weapon, lethal radius is 21 meters. For a required damage of 0.75 the number of missiles required, if the CEP of the missile is 500 meter, is 1,286.

However, if the missiles are used against large military bases and installations, even with missiles that have large CEPs they are likely to hit something or at least cause some form of damage and disrupt activities. Ballistic missiles can also be used with success against soft targets, in open areas and cities to inflict maximum human casualties and create terror. In essence what is considered as a major component in asymmetric warfare in the form of high civilian casualties.

Accuracy isn't that important for using missiles as a terror instrument- or as a nuclear weapon delivery system.

(h/t Yoel)

07/24 Links Pt1: Israel United Against Iran Deal, So Should Those Who Claim to Be Its Friends

From Ian:

Mordechai Kedar: How come America is Still "The Great Satan" in Iran?

Since the Iran Agreement does not provide a foolproof way to check that the Ayatollahs are definitely not developing nuclear arms, we can conclude that sooner or later Iran will develop nuclear weapons in secret, if it has not done so already. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Ayatollahs pose a danger to the entire world because of the apocalyptic views of Shiite Islam and because of the Islamist ambition for global hegemony. Islamic religious tradition allows for the use of force and threats. Nuclear weapons will be a tool that allows the Ayatollahs to carry out their Shiite Islamist agenda and move on to control the world.
The only way to completely remove the danger of Iran's nuclear weapons is to abolish the rule of the Ayatollahs. Now that the world has done away with the economic sanctions weapon, there are only two ways left to achieve that goal: one, to encourage the young, secular adult majority to fight the regime and two, aid the minority groups in destabilizing the regime and undercutting its unity.
Iran's rulers are weak, afraid of the people, looking for outside enemies, lost in their own extremist rantings that are an attempt to hide their weaknesses. It would not be very difficult to overthrow the present regime. The moral justification for this is solid: the Ayatollah's have been undermining Lebanon's government since 1980 and recently, doing the same in Yemen. They supply arms, weapons and money to Assad, the mass murderer, and are largely responsible for the blood spilled in Iraq. They are behind terror worldwide, and have justly earned the world's desire to be rid of them and send them to a place where they cannot inflict any more damage on the human race. That, of course, would be the end of the Iranian nuclear weapons issue.
The questions that remain are straighforward. Does the world sees the dangers facing the world from the Iranian regime? Does it realize the real situation in Iran, the reality described in this article? And does the world have the courage to do what is needed to solve, in passing, the Iranian nuclear problem?

Martin Sherman: The Iran deal – moronic, myopic, malevolent, mendacious

Of course if one wishes to see a durable, non-militarized solution to the Iranian crisis, perhaps the only conceivable avenue is regime change and installation of a more moderate, Western-oriented government.
But by greatly empowering and enriching the incumbent theocracy, the deal cut last week makes such a prospect incalculably more remote.
In the words of Saba Farzan, a German-Iranian journalist and director of a Berlin think tank, published in The Jerusalem Post: “The Vienna deal bears a very grave danger for Iran’s civil society. Not only won’t we see their economic situation improve, but the regime will also have an incentive to abuse human rights more severely. A flood of cash is going into the pockets of this leadership.
It will be used to tighten their grip [on power] and to further imprison, torture and kill innocent Iranians.”
She is, of course, right – and that is one of the greatest tragedies of the travesty concocted in Vienna last week.

Jew vs. Jew (vs. Jew) on the Iran deal

The Jews of Israel oppose the agreement with Iran. The Jews of America support it. The just-released LA Jewish Journal survey turns an assumption into a fact: The two largest Jewish communities cannot agree on a major world development that could significantly change the state of the Jewish state.
Israel will discover today — much to many Israelis’ surprise (because they don’t much understand American Jews) — that it cannot count on the majority of American Jewry to fight the battle against the agreement alongside it. A majority of American Jews will discover today that amid all the noise made by opponents of the deal, not much has changed for them as a group: They support President Barack Obama; they vote Democratic; they approve of the agreement. American Jews are just like Americans, as sociologist Steven Cohen, who oversaw the survey, writes: They are all skeptical about the deal, but their politics dictate the way they ultimately see it.
There is one question that stands out in this poll as deserving the title “the most troubling.” That is, troubling for those who highly value the bond between Jewish communities. “Does the agreement make Israel safer or more endangered?” Cohen asked his Jewish-American respondents. And they have an answer for him: It endangers Israel.
So here, presumably, you have it all, encapsulated in one question: American Jews support the deal, even though they are skeptical about its outcome, and even though they understand that by supporting the deal, they contribute to making Israel less safe. (h/t Yenta Press)

Deputy Knesset speaker slams US over false Susiya comments

Betzalel Smotrich, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, has written a letter to US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro that is worth reading in full:

His Excellency Mr. Daniel B. Shapiro Ambassador of the United States of America to the State of Israel

Honorable Sir:

Re: The Position of the State Department of the United States regarding the issue of the illegal Arab encampment adjacent to the town of Susiya

Last week, a statement was issued by the State Department of the United States (Mr. Kirby) relating to the issue of an illegal Arab encampment near the town of Susiya in south Hebron hills.

This statement indicates both a lack of fundamental understanding of the facts connected to the illegal encampment referred to above as well as an intolerable intervention by the US Government into judicial proceedings being conducted in a foreign country under a legal system with a longstanding international reputation of justice and fidelity to the law.

For the record, here are the true facts connected to this issue, which should dispel the lies and half-truths being spread by various factions (both from within Israel and abroad) seeking to discredit the State of Israel and the Israeli legal system.

1. First and foremost it must be clarified that the claim that this refers to an Arab village that has been in existence for hundreds of years, or even for decades, is, quite simply, a bald-faced lie. Aerial photographs attest that no settlement existed in the location where the current illegal encampment stands prior to the year 2000, apart from 4-5 structures, which were built during the late 90s.

2. Today, the encampment includes more than 64 illegal structures, with more than 54 of them having been built between 2011-2013. It is clear to any law-abiding person that this is scandalous.

3. More egregious, is that in addition to illegal building, in 2013 there was an interim order issued by the High Court of Israel forbidding this illegal construction in this place, establishing clearly that it was forbidden to carry out any additional illegal construction. After the order was issued, more than 30 additional illegal structures were built, which constitutes more than half the total number of structures currently in the encampment, in direct violation of the standing order issued by the High Court of Israel.

4. In actuality, this is a land grab by the Nuwajah family from the city of Yatta, of lands that never belonged to them, ignoring the law and building illegal structures in contravention of administrative orders issued against them by the Civil Administration, as well as explicit orders issued against them by the High Court of Israel.

5. An inspection of the Population Registry of the Civil Administration revealed that the majority of family members residing in the illegal encampment, have homes in the city of Yatta – that is, rather than talking about expulsion of people from their land of many years, this is the removal of squatters.

6. In a most distressing manner, the announcement by the State Department called upon the State of Israel to engage in dialogue with the illegal residents of the encampment for humanitarian reasons. This was stated despite the fact that the State of Israel, out of the utmost leniency and humanitarian concern, and the fact that these families have homes, has agreed to allocate to residents of the encampment an area in exchange, on State land adjacent to the town of Yatta in Area C.

There is no doubt that the State Department's announcement is based upon the lies that were presented to the American administration, since it is otherwise impossible to explain the utter disconnect between the reality of the situation and the content of the announcement.

However, while one can assume that the State Department has been misled- it still appears that the statement went well beyond that which is acceptable or appropriate. This statement was not in reference to policies (in regard to which an expression of opinion or interest by a foreign country may at times be acceptable) but rather in reference to issues and final rulings of the Israeli judicial system, as will be explained below.

The issue of illegal construction in this encampment has been adjudicated by before the High Court of Israel multiple times, beginning with a petition filed in 2001 to the High Court of Justice when the court was asked to prevent the demolition of the structures, through a petition filed against the demolition in 2012 and most recently a petition filed in 2014. In each of these petitions it was found that the claims of the residents of the illegal encampment were false and building in that location would not be permitted.

In addition, the court noted that it could not accept the fact that parallel too conducting court proceedings – massive illegal building was taking place. Because of this, and as a result of this continued illegal building, the court ordered demolition of those illegal structures built in violation and in contempt of the explicit orders of the court.

All of the above indicates that the issue of the illegal Arab encampment next to Susiya received the complete attention of the Supreme Court of Israel, which, as known, does not discriminate. Despite this, and despite the great tolerance demonstrated by the justices in humanitarian issues connected with the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria – still the court ordered the demolition of illegal structures in the encampment. The Court even refused the request of the residents of the village to prevent demolition of the structures and to issue interim orders freezing the demolition.

Subsequent to all of this, and despite the fact that it relates to a judicial decision issued in accordance with the law, the State Department of the United States does not hesitate to recklessly issue a statement calling upon Israel to prevent the demolition of illegal structures.

There is no doubt that we are speaking of an act that should not have been done, and we must object to this dangerous intervention ---- into judicial decisions of the legal system of a sovereign nation that acts in accordance with principles of justice and integrity. It is difficult to believe that the State Department is calling upon the government of Israel not to act in accordance with a decision of the High Court of Israel – but this is the reality.

It is unclear how anti-Israel groups find such a receptive ear within the State Department, which then acts without receiving true and balanced information from official sources of the State of Israel.

In light of the above, I request your immediate intervention, in your capacity as the official representative of the Government of the United States, and that you announce that the Government of the United States retract its unfounded statement and commit to a full investigation of how such a statement was issued, without checking and verifying the facts, while grossly intervening in the legal system of a foreign country.

Yours sincerely,

Betzalel Smotrich
Member of Knesset
Deputy Speaker of the Knesset

Mohamad bin AbdelRahman al-Arefe is an Islamic theologian from Saudi Arabia. He is a professor at King Saud University. he has over 17 million Facebook followers and 12.5 million Twitter followers, making him the most popular tweeter in the Middle East.

This week, he wrote a critique of the Egyptian Ramadan TV series "Jewish Quarter", complaining that it showed Jews in a positive light, when in reality Jews are terrible people. It was picked up by Arabic media.

He brings up six points from the series that he finds problematic:

1- The Jew is portrayed as generous
The Jews are known by all nations to worship money, they came up with usury

2- The Jew is portrayed as forgiving
They are known for treachery and they never keep their promises and covenants.

3- Jews are portrayed as kind and affectionate
The Jews who defy God and hate Muslims are portrayed as kind.

4- Jews are depicted as making every effort to ward of strife and fighting
(Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it.) Surat Al-Mā'idah 5:64

5- Jews are shown as brave
Jews are known for cowardice fighting face to face .. "they do not fight you except from fortified villages or from behind walls"

6- Jews are portrayed as righteous
It is known that Jews use their wives for any secular purpose and not so long ago Tzipi Livni, the Israeli minister, admitted that she was having sex with Arab personalities with permission from rabbis.

All the bad qualities of the Jews are mentioned in the Koran and this series tried to refute these facts, according to al-Arefe.

(h/t Shawarma News)

The myth of Susiya

From The Jewish Chronicle:

The planned demolition of illegally built homes in the West Bank Palestinian village of Sussiya is causing the next diplomatic crisis between Israel and Europe.

Two months ago, the residents of Sussiya lost their petition requesting the High Court to block the planned demolition of the village.

Sussiya is in Area C of the West Bank, where all the planning authority is under Israeli control. The buildings in Sussiya were constructed despite the Israeli Civil Administration's refusal to grant planning permission.

Following the High Court decision, Sussiya has become the focus of an international campaign against the demolition, including multiple visits by foreign diplomats.

Wikipedia says:

Palestinian Susya, called Susya al-Qadima ('Old Susya')[48] is a centuries' old village which written records attest the existence of from 1830.[49]

The references to this belong to a 2012 article in the New York Review of Books and a 2013 article by Rabbis for Human Rights.

The NYRB article asserts, without evidence, that Susya is known as "Susya al-Qadima." I could find no reference to such a village in any sources before the 21st century.

The RHR article says:

The Palestinian village of Susya has existed for hundreds of years, long predating the Jewish Israeli settlement of Susya, which was founded in its neighborhood in 1983. Written records of the existence of a Palestinian community in its location exist from as far back as 1830, and the village is also found on British Mandate maps from 1917. The residents of Khirbet Susya, who today reside in temporary structures north of the Israeli settlement, originally lived in the village of Susya Al-Qadime, located near the ancient synagogue at Susya, where there was a settled village until the 1980s. The Palestinian residents’ ownership of this land is established in law.

Everything in this paragraph is a lie.

I did find some old maps that referred to Susiyeh but a survey of 19th century travelogues show that no one lived there, and it was only visited because of the ruins there: From Biblical Researches in Palestine and the Adjacent Regions: A Journal of Travels in the Years 1838 & 1852 by Edward Robinson, Eli Smith and Others, Volume 1:

The Palestine Exploration Fund update in 1875 likewise goes into detail on the ruins of Sussieh but doesn't mention anyone living there.

Maps from the 1940s didn't mention any village in the area Susya is. For example, a map that can be seen in the "Palestine Remembered" site to document old Arab villages has nothing where Susya is, as a comparison between Google Maps (surrounding towns circled) and their map shows:

Regavim has the most comprehensive description of the truth about Susiya:

A historical village? Not really! The claim that this is an Arab village which existed hundreds of years, or even decades, is completely false. According to travelers in the 19^th century, and from surveys of villages and population conducted by the British mandatory powers in 1945, which mention all of the villages in the area and even some of the inhabitants, there is no hint of the existence of a village named Susiya, except as an ancient archeological site. This rocky land on which this illegal encampment is situated served the purpose of grazing land. In those days, only during the grazing months, the caves in the area provided temporary protection for the shepherds from the village of Yatta from robbers, wild animals, and inclement weather. Aerial photographs testify that in this place, there never was any settlement before the year 2000, except for 4 or 5r structures which were built illegally during the late 1990’s.

Jewish history. In the archealogical excavations on the ancient site, there was found an ancient Jewish settlement which dated from the 4^th to the 9^th centuries of the Common Era. According to the scholars, this was a thriving Jewish community, which existed hundreds of years after the destruction of the Second Temple, and achieved the height of its development at the end of the Byzantine period, and at the beginning of the old Arab period. On the site, they discovered a large synagogue, ritual baths, homes, community buildings, and other structures. Further, in 1986, 277 dunam in the area were allocated to establish an archaeological site, and from then on, it was forbidden for the shepherds to use the old caves. At first, during the grazing seasons, the shepherds came and put up tents and —- for the period of the grazing, but in the last decade, the Nawaja family has tried to take permanent control over the area.

Not an expulsion—an eviction of squatters. Research in the population registries of the Civil Administration indicates that the majority of the families found in the illegal encampment owned homes in the village of Yatta. The Najawa family, who lives in Yatta, seized control of lands which do not at all belong to them. Thus, we are not speaking of driving people off of their lands, but of evicted illegal squatters who have put up tens of structures in violation of the law.

Susiya shows how willing Western reporters and diplomats are to believe the most outrageous Palestinian Arab lies.

The New York Times published an op-ed by one of the squatters where he claims that his family has lived there for generations, without doing any fact checking.

It is a scandal that anyone is writing about Susiya without mentioning that the Arabs are lying about its history.

Pete Hoekstra: "Very difficult to snap back sanctions against Iran": (EoZ Interview)

During the Stop Iran Rally in New York City on Wednesday, I interviewed Pete Hoekstra, former Chair of the House Intelligence Committee on the dangers of the Iran nuclear deal.

\

Former Islamic extremist Kasim Hafeez on the dangers of the Iran deal (EoZ Interview)

Kasim Hafeez, a British Muslim Zionist, spoke at the Stop Iran Rally in Times Square on Wednesday. Here is his interview with me:

Iran to provide IAEA with soil samples from Parchin. Trust them!

From TOI:

John Kerry rebukes fellow Democrat Robert Menendez for revealing what he says is a “classified” clause in the Iran nuclear deal stating that Iran will be the one to provide the UN atomic agency with samples from sites with suspected nuclear activity.

“That is a classified component of this,” Kerry says when the New Jersey senator asks about the section of the deal. Menendez says it is “the equivalent of the fox guarding the chicken coop.”

HuffPo says that this is from Parchin.

Parchin is a suspected nuclear weapons development center.

In March, 2012, examining Parchin was a high priority for the P5+1:

Six world powers demanded Iran keep its promise to let international inspectors visit a military installation where the U.N. nuclear watchdog believes explosives tests geared to developing atomic bombs may have taken place.

The joint call was an unusual show of unity among the powers on Iran before a planned revival of high-level talks as well as widening disquiet about the nature of Tehran's nuclear ambitions, with Israel threatening last-ditch military action.

Heaping pressure on Iran to come clean, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany used a U.N. nuclear watchdog governors' meeting on Thursday to urge Tehran to grant prompt access to its Parchin military facility.

They voiced concern that no deal was reached between Iran and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors at talks in January and February, "including on the access to relevant sites in Iran, requested by the agency ... We urge Iran to fulfil its undertaking to grant access to Parchin."

The message was reinforced by a remarkably blunt statement from IAEA director Yukiya Amano accusing Tehran of seeking to "tie our hands" and restrict inspectors during their last two rounds of meetings.

His deputy Herman Nackaerts told Thursday's closed session of the IAEA board of governors session, according to one participant: "Due to major differences between Iran and the agency, agreement could not be reached."

Nackaerts, the IAEA's chief safeguards inspector, said it had information from satellite pictures showing "the precise location where we believe an explosive chamber is situated".

Then in May 2012, Iran bulldozed part of the Parchin complex...

...and then literally covered over other parts with pink tarp so they could not be seen by satellite.

So Iran is already known to be hiding evidence in Parchin.

And Kerry trusts Iran to take soil samples from a site that we know they want to keep hidden.

This is a slow-motion nightmare.

(h/t Yenta)

07/23 Links Pt2: J Street Fronts For Obama On The Iranian Deal; Oren: Jesus today would be a 'settler'

From Ian:

J Street Fronts For Obama On The Iranian Deal

New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief and often unrelenting critic of Israel, Jodi Rudoren tweeted the obvious about Israelis reaction to the Obama administration’s deal with Iran, “You know, 2 Jews, 3 opinions. Here you have 8 million Jews and nearly one opinion.”
Israelis understood that their security, if not their existence, was being offered up on a platter of narcissism to promote President Barack Obama’s legacy and Secretary of State John Kerry’s quest for a Nobel Prize that will be as meaningful as the one given to the murderous thug Yasser Arafat.
Israeli Jews are indeed of one pessimistic mind with regard to Obama’s capitulation to Iran. Israeli Jews remember that in the period between the wars, among their European brethren, the pessimists fled to America while the optimists got a free train ride to Auschwitz. Misplaced optimism has its price.
For both Israeli Jews and nearly every major Jewish organization, this is not a time for optimism but a time to petition congress to block Obama’s surrender to the mullahs.
Not so for J Street, the anti-Zionist Zionists that have convinced “useful idiots” in the liberal Jewish community that Obama has effectively blocked Iran from a pathway to the bomb by releasing billions in Iranian funds, ending sanctions, and submitting to every demand the Iranians made with regard to inspections, which will require more notice than the Chicago police once gave Al Capone before a raid.
J Street’s president and founder, Jeremy Ben-Ami once described the organization as Barack Obama’s blocking back. So, it is not surprising that the organization proclaimed that the deal appeared to adhere to the criteria established by non-proliferation experts and it verifiably blocks Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon.

J Street defends Iran deal in full-page NYTimes ad

As high-stakes lobbying efforts kicked into gear on Capital Hill Thursday, the liberal Jewish American lobby J Street ran a full-page advertisement in The New York Times urging Congress to refrain from “sabotaging” the Iranian nuclear agreement.
The “pro Israel, pro peace” advocacy group’s ad suggested that the Jewish state will be better off with the pact, and that Tehran will be stripped of its uranium, plutonium and centrifuges and undergo a 24/7 monitoring regime.
The deal “makes the US and Israel safer” and leaves the Islamic Republic with “zero pathways to the bomb,” the ad states, echoing US President Barack Obama.
J Street has found itself on the opposing side of the aisle as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Israeli ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, try to persuade lawmakers that the nuclear deal with Iran endangers the Jewish state.

Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran: The Iran nuclear deal. Good deal or bad deal?

Caroline Glick: "The American people have to show that they oppose this deal" (EoZ Interview)

I interviewed Caroline Glick at the Stop Iran rally right after her passionate speech against the Iran deal.

Here is her speech at the rally:

Unfortunately, when I introduced myself she mentioned that I "panned" her book. (My review wasn't exactly a pan, but I was honest about its flaws. As with Michael Oren's book, it is a worthwhile read but I had higher expectations because of my admiration for the author.)