Sen. Marco Rubio “Boxes in” Obama on Obama’s declared Iran Nuclear Deal - Eli Lake

by Eli Lake

Rubio just wants the Iran deal to conform to the president’s own description of a nuclear framework agreement. As Rubio said Wednesday, “It requires this final deal be the deal the president says it is.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida and aspirant for his party’s presidential nomination, has a very poisonous pill he is seeking to add to Iran legislation this week before the Senate.
No, it’s not his much discussed amendment saying Congress would not lift its sanctions on Iran unless Iran recognized Israel. Rather Rubio just wants the Iran deal to conform to the president’s own description of a nuclear framework agreement. As Rubio said Wednesday, “It requires this final deal be the deal the president says it is.”
On the surface, this seems like small ball. On April 2, the White House released a fact sheet that spelled out Iran’s obligations to modify some of its nuclear facilities and limit its enrichment. The fact sheet said sanctions would be phased out over time as Iran complied with the terms of the framework.
Rubio’s amendment simply quotes that fact sheet verbatim and says the president may not waive or lift any Congressional sanctions until he certifies Iran has met the White House conditions.
“For the life of me, I don’t understand why that would be controversial,” Rubio said Wednesday. “Yet somehow, I was told this would box the White House in.”
But Rubio knows very well why the amendment is controversial. Almost immediately after the White House announced the terms of what it thought was a framework agreement, the Iranians balked. The foreign minister, Javad Zarif, tweeted that the White House fact sheet was spin. The head of Iran’s revolutionary guard corps said international inspectors would never gain access to military sites. And Iran’s supreme leader says all sanctions must be lifted up front when Iran signs an agreement.
In the face of Iran’s new red lines, Obama wobbled. On April 17, Obama said he was instructing his negotiators to “find formulas that get to our main concerns while allowing the other side to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable.”
In the Senate it’s not clear whether Rubio will get a vote on his fact-sheet amendment. On Wednesday Rubio said leaders of his party promised that he would be able to get a fair hearing for his amendments during the floor debate, but that this week he said he was being told there may not be enough time to vote on all the amendments Republicans have offered.
So far, Democrats and a few Republicans have voted down two amendments to the Iran bill. An amendment to treat an Iran deal as a treaty, and thus require an affirmative two-thirds majority to approve it in the Senate, was voted down Tuesday 57 to 39. Another amendment that would require Obama to certify Iran was not supporting acts of terrorism against Americans as a condition for lifting Congressional sanctions was voted down 54 to 45 on Wednesday.
Among the Republicans voting with Democrats on the amendments are Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and co-author of the legislation; Arizona Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee; and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, an Iran hawk who has hinted he will be running for president.
- See more at: http://israel-commentary.org/?p=11281#sthash.R6b7lCCm.dpuf

Chicago Tribune

April 30, 2015

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida and aspirant for his party’s presidential nomination, has a very poisonous pill he is seeking to add to Iran legislation this week before the Senate.

No, it’s not his much discussed amendment saying Congress would not lift its sanctions on Iran unless Iran recognized Israel. Rather Rubio just wants the Iran deal to conform to the president’s own description of a nuclear framework agreement. As Rubio said Wednesday, “It requires this final deal be the deal the president says it is.”

On the surface, this seems like small ball. On April 2, the White House released a fact sheet that spelled out Iran’s obligations to modify some of its nuclear facilities and limit its enrichment. The fact sheet said sanctions would be phased out over time as Iran complied with the terms of the framework.

Rubio’s amendment simply quotes that fact sheet verbatim and says the president may not waive or lift any Congressional sanctions until he certifies Iran has met the White House conditions.

“For the life of me, I don’t understand why that would be controversial,” Rubio said Wednesday. “Yet somehow, I was told this would box the White House in.”

But Rubio knows very well why the amendment is controversial. Almost immediately after the White House announced the terms of what it thought was a framework agreement, the Iranians balked. The foreign minister, Javad Zarif, tweeted that the White House fact sheet was spin. The head of Iran’s revolutionary guard corps said international inspectors would never gain access to military sites. And Iran’s supreme leader says all sanctions must be lifted up front when Iran signs an agreement.

In the face of Iran’s new red lines, Obama wobbled. On April 17, Obama said he was instructing his negotiators to “find formulas that get to our main concerns while allowing the other side to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable.”

In the Senate it’s not clear whether Rubio will get a vote on his fact-sheet amendment. On Wednesday Rubio said leaders of his party promised that he would be able to get a fair hearing for his amendments during the floor debate, but that this week he said he was being told there may not be enough time to vote on all the amendments Republicans have offered.

So far, Democrats and a few Republicans have voted down two amendments to the Iran bill. An amendment to treat an Iran deal as a treaty, and thus require an affirmative two-thirds majority to approve it in the Senate, was voted down Tuesday 57 to 39. Another amendment that would require Obama to certify Iran was not supporting acts of terrorism against Americans as a condition for lifting Congressional sanctions was voted down 54 to 45 on Wednesday.

Among the Republicans voting with Democrats on the amendments are Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and co-author of the legislation; Arizona Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee; and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, an Iran hawk who has hinted he will be running for president.

But Rubio’s fact-sheet amendment is different. It doesn’t challenge the presidential authority to sign an executive agreement. Republicans supported that power when their party controlled the White House. Rubio’s fact-sheet amendment is also germane to the Iran legislation before the Senate. An argument used against other amendments–like Rubio’s one on recognizing Israel–is that it asks Iran to meet conditions not related to the nuclear negotiations.

Rubio’s fact sheet amendment only asks Democrats to vote on whether a final Iran deal should meet the conditions as described by the leader of their own party. If Democrats vote that it should, then Obama may be forced to issue a veto over his own fact sheet as he seeks to make a final agreement more palatable to Iran. If the Democrats vote that it shouldn’t, then they will appear to be conceding the White House either misled the public or bungled the negotiations earlier this month.

An irony here is that Rubio himself has said that the deal outlined in the White House fact sheet was too weak. But bad policy in this case makes for very good politics.

Eli Lake is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about politics and foreign affairs.

II  But today,  US Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Bill Giving Congress Oversight of Iran Deal

MAY 7, 2015

Author: avatar

JNS.org

The United States Senate rejected a bid to consider the Iran nuclear deal as an international treaty.

JNS.org – The U.S. Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which would give Congress a 30-day period to review a final nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, in a 98-1 vote.

The only senator to vote against the bill was U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who objected on the grounds that the legislation does not require a final nuclear agreement to be submitted as a treaty requiring Senate approval. U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer was absent for the vote.

Eli Lake is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about politics and foreign affairs.

Source: http://israel-commentary.org/?p=11281

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Diplomats: Traces of Undeclared Sarin and VX Found in Syria - The Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff

by The Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff

International inspectors have found traces of sarin and VX nerve agent in Syria that had not been declared to the OPCW.

 

UN chemical inspectors in Syria

Reuters

 

International inspectors have found traces of sarin and VX nerve agent at a military research site in Syria that had not been declared to the global chemical weapons watchdog, diplomatic sources told the Reuters news agency on Friday.

Samples taken by experts from the Organization for the Prohibition and Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in December and January tested positive for chemical precursors needed to make the toxic agents, the sources told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

"This is a pretty strong indication they have been lying about what they did with sarin," one diplomatic source said. "They have so far been unable to give a satisfactory explanation about this finding."

In 2013, the United States threatened military intervention against Syria's government after sarin gas attacks that year killed hundreds of residents in Ghouta, a rebel-controlled suburb of the Syrian capital Damascus.

The Damascus government forestalled foreign intervention by agreeing to a U.S.- and Russian-brokered deal under which it joined the OPCW, admitting to having a chemicals weapons program and promising to eliminate it.

A joint mission between the UN and the OPCW was then tasked with eliminating Syria's chemical weapons program, and the government of President Bashar Al-Assad last year handed over 1,300 tons of chemical arms.

Damascus has denied using sarin or any chemical weapons in battle during Syria's continuing civil war.

The diplomatic sources told Reuters the sarin and VX nerve samples were taken from the Scientific Studies and Research Center, a government agency where Western intelligence agencies say Syria developed biological and chemical weapons.

Asked about the diplomats' account, OPCW spokesman Peter Sawczak replied, "Obviously we are working to clarify Syria's declaration. I cannot discuss any details of that process, but in due course the assessment team will issue a report."

An OPCW fact-finding mission has been investigating allegations of dozens of recent chlorine gas attacks in Syrian villages but is being refused access to the sites by the Assad government, the diplomatic sources said.

The finding of VX and sarin supports assertions by Western governments that Assad withheld some of his stockpile, or did not disclose the full extent of Syria's chemical capability or arsenal to the OPCW, according to diplomats and analysts.

OPCW inspectors have been to Syria eight times to verify the accuracy of the details of the chemical weapons program provided in an initial report, but keep returning with more questions than answers, the diplomats told Reuters.

Under the deal with Washington and Moscow, Syria agreed to permanently and completely destroy its chemical weapons program and cannot use poison gas in warfare.

The OPCW, which is not mandated to assign blame, said chlorine has been used "systematically and repeatedly" as a weapon in Syria after Damascus handed over its declared toxic stockpile.

The diplomats’ comments come one day after Syrian activists and a doctor reported new suspected chlorine attacks in the northwestern province of Idlib.


The Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/195198#.VU5ay5Ozd-8

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Iran and suspension of disbelief - Yoram Ettinger

by Yoram Ettinger

The editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily added: "Has the axis of evil collapsed to the extent that President Obama is courting one of its key members?! Isn't this the same Tehran that has posed a clear and present danger to the Gulf states for the past 36 years?!"

The term "suspension of disbelief" -- coined in 1817 by the philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge -- refers to a willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe the unbelievable; sacrificing reality, common sense, doubt and complexity on the altar of a pretend reality, convenience and oversimplification; infusing a semblance of truth into an untrue narrative. 

U.S. President Jimmy Carter's policy toward Iran in 1977-1979 was characterized by suspension of disbelief: energizing the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini while ignoring or underestimating his track record and his radical, supremacist and violent worldview. The betrayal of the Shah transformed Tehran from "the U.S. policeman in the Gulf" to the worst enemy of the U.S. 

Currently, the suspension of disbelief undermines the U.S. posture of deterrence and vital U.S. national security and commercial interests. It was demonstrated by U.S. President Barack Obama, who -- irrespective of Middle East reality -- referred to the brutally intolerant, terror-driven, anti-U.S., anti-infidel, repressive, tumultuous Arab tsunami as the "Arab Spring." He said it was "casting off the burdens of the past," "a story of self-determination," "a democratic upheaval," "a peaceful opposition," "rejection of political violence" and "a transition toward [multi-sectarian, multi-ethnic] democracy."

Suspension of disbelief, coupled with the ayatollahs' mastery of 'taqiyya' (Islam-sanctioned double-talk and deception), is what led U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to assert on November 24, 2013 that "Iran's Foreign Minister [Mohammad Javad] Zarif emphasized that they don't intend to acquire nuclear weapons, and Iran's supreme leader has indicated that there is a 'fatwa' [an authoritative religious ruling] which forbids them to do this." 

In an April 7, 2015 NPR interview, Obama made a reality-stretching assumption which underlines the Iran policy: "If in fact Iran is engaged in international business ... then in many ways it makes it even harder for them to engage in behaviors that are contrary to international norms. ... It is possible that if we sign this nuclear deal, we strengthen the hand of the more moderate forces in Iran." 

Rebutting Obama's remarks, Amir Taheri, a leading authority on Iran, wrote: "Hope is not a sufficient basis for a strategy. ... [The relatively moderate former President Akbar Hashemi] Rafsanjani has little chance of surviving a direct clash with [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei. "

The Saudi frustration with U.S. policy on Iran -- shared by all pro-U.S. Arab regimes -- was expressed on April 25, 2015 by the opinion editor of the prestigious Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat, which echoes the position of the House of Saud: "While the U.S. considers the ayatollahs a legitimate partner to negotiation, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states are in a state of war with Iran, which is the main source of chaos in the region." The editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily added: "Has the axis of evil collapsed to the extent that President Obama is courting one of its key members?! Isn't this the same Tehran that has posed a clear and present danger to the Gulf states for the past 36 years?!" 

The zeal to make a deal plays into the hands of the ayatollahs and overlooks the following facts:

• An agreement is not the goal, but a tool to achieve the real goal.

• Transforming an agreement to a goal undermines the real goal.

• Details of an agreement are less critical than the details of the ayatollahs' 36-year track record of supremacist, apocalyptic and megalomaniacal violence, martyrdom, sponsorship of global Islamic terrorism, subversion of pro-U.S. Arab regimes, repression, anti-U.S. hate education- and policies, a systematic noncompliance with agreements and mastery of concealment.

• Such a track record warrants a "guilty until proven innocent" approach.

• Preconditioning an agreement upon a dramatic change in the conduct of the rogue, anti-U.S. ayatollahs would be "a poison pill" to a bad deal, but a vitamin to a good deal.

• A "bad deal" would nuclearize Iran; "no deal" would allow the U.S. to choose the ways and means to prevent Iran's nuclearization.

• Nuclear capabilities would extend the life of the repressive, rogue ayatollah regime, precluding any hope for civil liberties or home-induced regime change.

• An agreement -- not preconditioned upon the transformation of the ayatollahs -- would compound their clear and present threat to vital U.S. interests.

• The transformation of the nature of the ayatollahs -- as a precondition to an agreement -- would prevent the nuclearization of the ayatollahs.

• Precluding the option of military pre-emption has strengthened and radicalized the rogue ayatollahs, and could lead to a nuclear war.

• Misrepresenting the option of military pre-emption as war defies reality, since it should be limited to surgical -- no troops on the ground -- air and naval bombings of critical parts of Iran's nuclear infrastructure from U.S. bases in Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the Indian Ocean, or aircraft carriers.

• A U.S. military option forced Iran to end the 1980-1988 war against Iraq, convinced Libya to give away its nuclear infrastructure in 2003, and led Iran to suspend its nuclear development in 2003.

• "Ironclad" supervision and intelligence failed to detect the nuclearization of the USSR, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea.

• Unlike the USSR, which was deterred by Mutual Assured Destruction, the apocalyptic ayatollahs would be energized by MAD-driven martyrdom.

• The zeal to strike a deal has led to a U.S. retreat from six U.N. Security Council Resolutions, which aimed to prevent Iran's nuclearization.

• A nuclear Iran, which celebrates "Death to America Day," would devastate cardinal U.S. interests: toppling the oil-producing Arab regimes (impacting supply and price of oil) and other pro-U.S. Arab regimes; intensifying Islamic terrorism, globally and on the U.S. mainland; agitating Latin America; collaborating with North Korea; cooperating with Russia and destabilizing Africa and Asia.

• The track record of the ayatollahs on the one hand, and compliance with agreements on the other hand, constitute an oxymoron.

• Suspension of disbelief, in the case of Iran's nuclearization, entails overlooking facts that highlight the implausibility of a viable agreement with the ayatollahs, thus damaging crucial U.S. interests and fueling a nuclear war.

Yoram Ettinger

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12505

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

What to Do About ISIL? - Charles Crawford

by Charles Crawford

• No Western leader strides out to the TV cameras and says that much the best response to the butchering of his or her citizens is to do not much, then wait to see what happens.
• If we really do think that ISIL has no place in our century, let us start to give that idea substance: create a master-register of suspected war criminals; block companies that do business with ISIL from Western markets; cut diplomatic relations with supporters of ISIL.
  

At a recent conference, I found myself bemoaning the ineffectiveness of Western military action against the Islamic State (ISIL). We in the West had decided to attack ISIL, but seemed to be pulling our punches. Why were their banking, propaganda and other facilities that support their terrorist operations not being blown to bits?

Imagine the surprise when a senior U.S. expert on these issues replied that by far the best thing to do with ISIL was precisely nothing: the Middle East and wider "Muslim world" was doomed to a massive revolting civil war, so let them get on with it and take stock of the situation once it clarified.

That, perhaps, is rather easier for an American to say. European leaders stare aghast at the rising death toll among refugees ("migrants") in boats in the Mediterranean. Is it moral to do Nothing? But does doing Something simply encourage more terrified people to try to cross to Europe and stay there? Where does such a process end? Whose continent is Europe anyway?

Anything can be analysed indefinitely. Policy papers, strategy documents, roadmaps, risk 
management assessments, spreadsheets of options can all be produced in bewildering, bureaucratic profusion. Yet sooner or later, one of our leaders has to go out to face the media or the public, and explain in just a few words what is happening, and what to do about it.

Any such statement has to accomplish two basic tasks. It has to describe the proposed action and explain why that action makes sense. And it has to do that convincingly, while setting a compelling tone.

The statement by President Obama in August last year, following the murder by ISIL of the American hostage, journalist James Foley, was, of course, awful on almost every level. It failed to convey urgency, and framed itself against the all-important background of the president's golfing prowess. Above all, the central explicit philosophical idea was unerringly wrong: "One thing we can all agree on is that a group like ISIL has no place in the 21st century."

Why should we agree on that, when it is horribly obvious (a) that ISIL does have a place in this century and (b) that its place is tending to grow, including by attracting young people from our own societies who take post-modern irony to its logical conclusion, namely lurching society back to the gory glory of the Dark Ages?

On the other hand, the president's statement arguably ticked the box of purposeful inactivity. If the real policy is to sit back and watch the different violent factions in the Middle East attack each other, but not in fact admit that that is the policy, maybe the statement was quite clarifying in the greater scheme of things.

One thing we perhaps can all agree on is that the worst of all worlds is to appear tentative or indecisive. No Western leader strides out to the TV cameras and says that much the best response to the butchering of his or her citizens is to do not much, then wait to see what happens. Even those people who might agree that, all things considered, this is the best policy, will be tempted to hoot that the leader is showing clueless weakness. Leaders are paid by us to act! They hit us? We hit them! What's so difficult about that?

Well, yes. But there is a problem.

Precision bombing of ad hoc targets degrades and demoralizes ISIL to some extent. But it does not do much to tackle the primitive yet alluring ideological impulse that ISIL represents. It might even encourage it. Plus, our accumulated experience in the Middle East since 9/11 suggests that acting tough does not necessarily improve the situation.

Is there a middle way of cautious offense? If you folks over there want to murder each other over theological distinctions, we will not actively move against you and weigh in on one side or the other, as we did recently in Libya. However, we will take steps to defend our civilization against you and try to stop you spreading, by raising the immediate cost to you and your supporters of your loathsome activities.

In other words, if we really do think that ISIL has no place in our century, let us start to give that idea substance.

• Proclaim that anyone joining ISIL goes on a master-register of suspected war criminals, and is likely to be an unemployable outlaw for the rest of his or her wretched life.
• Declare that under no circumstances will any so-called state or "caliphate" created by ISIL ever be admitted into any serious international organization.
• Announce that any Western companies that do business with other companies trading with ISIL or helping with its finances face brutal fines; any other companies found to be trading with ISIL or funding its activities will be blocked indefinitely from Western markets.
• Diplomatic and trading relations with any country found to be directly supporting ISIL will be terminated forthwith. And so on.
•  

An ISIL spokesman proclaims the organization's plans to conquer Israel and the West.

Any such robust policy package as this will be implemented imperfectly. All policies are implemented with "pragmatic" (or cynical) exceptions and qualifications. Yet something like this at least sets a serious intellectual and rhetorical framework that makes sense to most of the mainstream global community and is likely to win popular support across the political spectrum.

The key point? Answer the bold ISIL assertion of inevitable Islamist victory with a clear counter-message: No, you are merely violent losers, you are not going anywhere.

Follow Charles Crawford on Twitter


Charles Crawford served as UK Ambassador in Sarajevo, Belgrade and Warsaw. He is now a communication consultant.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5694/isil-policy

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Last Battle? - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

A battle raging on the mountanous border between Syria and Lebanon portends a Lebanese bloodbath to rival that of Syria.

The Kalamon mountains range from Mount Hermon northwards for tens of kilometers, overlooking the Lebanon Valley to the west. The official boundary between Lebanon and Syria runs along the crest of the mountain range, with the western slopes of the mountains part of Lebanon and the eastern slopes part of Syria. The Beirut-Damascus highway serves as the northern edge.

The location of the range  has strategic importance, because whoever controls it controls what lies to the east – and can exercise that control with firearms or binoculars – as well as the roads that connect Damascus with central and northern Syria, enabling him to cut off Damascus from the rest of the country. Westwards, he who controls the mountains controls the southern Beqaa vally and its populace, most of them Shiites.

The Kalamon mountains, like Mount Hermon at their southern end, are covered with snow in the winter. That prevents most wide-ranging or significant military activity involving the transportion of soldiers and either heavy or medium sized weapons. Infantry, however, carrying light arms, can move around the area fairly easily. As a result, a double massing of forces has occurred there in the past few weeks: from the east, from inside Syria, fighters sent by various Sunni organizations,  Jabhat el Nusra being the first, have appeared on the scene in order to built fortifications, take positions and prepare for a westward offensive push into Lebanon. From the west, Hezbollah has been streaming forces to the area in order to block the rebels and force them out of Lebanon.  

Before the start of hostilities, the rebels succeeded in achieving an important psychological point: they announced the unification of five organizations under one name "The Attacking Army". The two most important are one connected to al Qaeda, and the one called the "Free Army". The only missing organization is ISIS, which may, however, join later. The unification is expected to make it easier to coordinate operations while also striking fear of the joint array of forces into the hearts of Hezbollah fighters.

The announcement the organizations made public after the unification says (my additions are in the brackets, M.K.) "intended to fight against the Nazarites [the Alawite's previous name, considered an insult], the Persian dogs [a pejorative referring here to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards] and the pigs of the Party of Satan [an insulting term for Hezbollah, whose name means the Party of the Lord].

It is interesting to note that last week the rebels conquered a town in northwest Syria, Jisr al-Shughour, and that this accomplishment was achieved after several organizations that united under one name. The conquest of Idlib and Jisr al-Shughour is a very important achievement for the rebels as they attempt to overrun the area of Lattakia on the Mediterranean coast, situated in the northern part of the Alawite region. The battle for the Kalamon mountains of southern Syria is a direct result of the failure of Assad and Hezbollah to keep  Idlib and Jisr al-Shughour, in the northern part of the range, in their hands.

Anyone who observed the stream of forces reaching the Kalamon mountains realized that once the snows melted, the battle would begin, and that is just what happened with a vengeance last Monday, as the Sunnis decided to commence hostilities before the Hezbollah  had completed their preparations. The battle began in a hilly, rocky, scrub-covered area, where the distances between the two sides are sometimes just a few meters. Both sides have suffered casualties but in the first two days, Hezbollah lost four of its commanders, and there are rumors that the rebels lost three of theirs. Nevertheless, when one side publicizes the casualties of the other, it is quite possible that there is psychological warfare involved on both sides, with each trying to demoralize the other's soldiers.

As far as Hezbollah is concerned, there are various estimates of its losses since it became involved in the Syrian crisis three years ago: there are those who claim that about 900 fighters have been killed and others who claim it is double that number. Thousands have been wounded. Hezbollah does not announce its casualty figures, but there are many Lebanese, even among the Shiite population, who accuse Nasrallah of sinking Hezbollah into  a fight that was not theirs to begin with. On the other hand, it is clear to all – and Nasrallah said so in his speech on May 5th - that if Assad's regime falls, Hezbollah will go down with it. Everyone knows that if Hezbollah is defeated in Syria, the Sunni Jihadists will overrun Lebanon looking for Shiites to behead.

There are also reports that prior to the Kalamon battle, Hezbollah transferred soldiers, heavy weaponry and rockets to the site taken from other areas, including the Golan, considered a less central arena. The significance of this move is that those areas may fall into the hands of the rebels, who will go after the Druze "heretic" villagers living there and on the southeastern slopes of Mount Hermon.  A few months ago, about 30 Druze were killed in one day of clashes with Islamists.

Other reports say that Hezbollah originally planned to name the Kalamon clashes the "Crucial Battle" and call up all its reserve forces to take part in what would be a decisive confrontation.  Nasrallah, however, after rethinking the situation, decided to settle for a less bombastic effort whose goal is simply to stop the rebels from advancing. The reason for this decision is the fear of too many casualties, which could arouse the Shiite public's anger against him.  Another possible reason is the fact that the plans were leaked by an opposition inside Hezbollah, and once revealed, lost the counted-on element of surprise.

Except that the truth concerning Hezbollah actions against Syrian rebels and especially Jabhat al Nusra is to be found somewhere else, namely with the tens of Hezbollah militants taken prisoner by ISIS and other Sunni groups during the last two years. The fear hovering in the Hezbollah air is that a video showing the beheading of Hezbollah prisoners will go internationally viral, showing what happens to Hezbollah Shiite fighters whose commanders and leader have no way to save them from being butchered. A video of this nature will show up the true weakness of Hezbollah and Nasrallah, and threaten the Hezbollah leader's ability to persuade his fighers to battle in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
According to the Alarabiya channel, some of the prisoners' relatives announced this week that they are vehemently against what Hezbollah is undertaking in Syria and Yemen and stressed that "they and their kidnapped sons refuse to be responsible for what Hezbollah does in Syria, Yemen and other places". One woman relative of a prisoner, said "We have no connection with Hezbollah [referring to it as the Party of the goddess "Allath"] and the party of Satan [a pejorative for Hezbollah] and we are shaking ourselves off from the organization and its activities." Other family members demanded that the Hezbollah refrain from causing damage to the town of Arsal [on the Lebanon-Syrian border, overrun by Syrian rebels] and its residents, because "it is not just that we pay the price instead of Syrians, Yemenis and others, especially in light of the fact that our [prisoner] sons are still alive and may be harmed if Hezbollah takes action there in any way."

An opinion of this nature broadcast in public is witness to the internal difficulties which Hezbollah is forced to take into account in its fight for its own survival and for the continued survival of the Shiites, all of whom are now under the real and imminent existential threat posed by the Jihadist Sunnis.

The war in Syria is intertwined with the future of Lebanon and it is a war to the death. And the rivers of blood that may soon flow in the waters of Lebanon will overshadow the blood-and-tear-filled swamps of Syria.


Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16894#.VU5J8JOzd-8

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Criticism Follows Israeli Aid to Nepal - Daniel Gordis

by Daniel Gordis

Hat tip: Darrell Simms

Israeli humanitarian aid, however, is unique in that it invariably evokes cynicism.

When a devastating earthquake struck Nepal on April 25, the Israel Defense Forces quickly assembled and sent one of the largest aid teams of any country. Its field hospital included 60 beds and an obstetrics department. A recent count noted that the Israeli physicians had conducted 33 surgeries, delivered five babies and were assisting in Nepalese hospitals, as well.

Reaching out to countries in need is a long-standing Israeli tradition. Emergency teams went to Turkey after an earthquake in 1999, and again in 2011, even though Turkey initially declined twice because of eroding relations between the two countries. Israel sent a large team to Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, and in March 2011, it was the first country to set up a field hospital in Japan after the tsunami. Similar relief efforts were conducted in Mexico (1985), Armenia (1988), Greece (1999), Egypt (2004) and Kenya (2006).

And though Syria has been at war with Israel since the Jewish state declared independence in 1948, Israeli physicians have been treating victims of the Syrian civil war for years, sometimes in field hospitals and at times in Israel’s major hospitals. Israel has even been sending aid into Syria proper.

Israeli humanitarian aid, however, is unique in that it invariably evokes cynicism. Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch (an organization so hostile to Israel that even its founder rebuked it in disgust and later left the organization), tweeted “Easier to address a far-away humanitarian disaster than the nearby one of Israel's making in Gaza. End the blockade!”

Israelis, too, have joined the pile-on. Haaretz, Israel’s hard-left-leaning paper of record, couldn't help but point out that “once again, Israel is shining during a disaster thousands of miles away. But the people down the coast are another thing.” (Haaretz didn't mention that Gaza’s Hamas government is sworn on destroying Israel, and unleashed a war against Israel’s citizens this past summer.) Another Haaretz column insisted that “Disaster relief feeds the illusion that we can somehow be clever, creative and cooperative enough to make the world absolve us of everything else that is wrong with what we do.”

Some Israelis, though, have had enough and are beginning to push back. In what started out as a Facebook post that eventually went viral and become a blog entry on the Times of Israel website, Haviv Rettig Gur wrote:

If I hear one more time that Israel's field hospital in Nepal is somehow connected to the conflict with the Palestinians, I'm going to permanently block the person saying so on the grounds that they're stupid. Here's the thing: Israel is an entire … country, with all the complicated impulses and competing agendas of any human society. … The IDF doesn't go to Nepal to avoid the Palestinian issue. It goes because Israelis have honed emergency medicine into an art form, and because the IDF has never quite shed its founding culture of adventurousness, and, above all, because there are people out there who desperately need help.

He’s right. When Golda Meir (who would have turned 117 this week) was foreign minister, she assembled her staff in 1959 to state unequivocally that aiding others is part of the very essence of Zionism. She said:

It has fallen to me to carry out Dr. Theodor Herzl’s vision. Each year, more and more African states are gaining national independence. Like us, their freedom was won only after years of struggle. … And like us, nobody handed them their sovereignty on a silver platter. … Israel’s nation-building experience is uniquely placed to lend a helping hand to the new African states. … We are going to send out to the new African states scores, even hundreds, thousands of Israeli experts of every sort -- technologists, scientists, doctors, engineers, teachers, agronomists, irrigation experts. They will all have but one task -- to unselfishly share their know-how with the African people.

She said that long before the Palestinian issue had arisen, long before Israel had an international reputation about which to worry. She said it because it was true. Whatever else one may think of Israel’s foreign policy, Haviv Rettig Gur is right: There are times that Israel does things -- like sending aid abroad -- simply because it is the right thing to do.

To contact the author on this story: Daniel Gordis at danielgordis@outlook.com
To contact the editor on this story: Stacey Shick at sshick@bloomberg.net

Daniel Gordis

Source: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-04/criticism-follows-israeli-aid-to-nepal?utm_source=taboola

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Labor force participation rate near record low - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

The 5.4% "official" unemployment rate is a mirage. All of the underlying data points - long term unemployment, part time workers, wages - all show a weak, barely sputtering economy. And the American people are not fooled.

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge blog has the grim news:

In what was an "unambiguously" unpleasant April jobs payrolls report, with a March revision dragging that month's job gain to the lowest level since June of 2012, the fact that the number of Americans not in the labor force rose once again, this time to 93,194K from 93,175K, with the result being a participation rate of 69.45 or just above the lowest percentage since 1977, will merely catalyze even more upside to the so called "market" which continues to reflect nothing but central bank liquidity, and thus - the accelerating deterioration of the broader economy.

End result: with the civilian employment to population ratio unchanged from last month at 59.3%, one can easily on the chart below why there will be no broad wage growth any time soon, which will merely allow the Fed to engage in its failed policies for a long, long time.

The 5.4% "official" unemployment rate is a mirage. All of the underlying data points - long term unemployment, part time workers, wages - all show a weak, barely sputtering economy. And the American people are not fooled. The latest consumer confidence index from the Conference Board is a real downer:

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index^®, which had increased in March, declined in April. The Index now stands at 95.2 (1985=100), down from 101.4 in March. The Present Situation Index decreased from 109.5 last month to 106.8 in April. The Expectations Index declined from 96.0 last month to 87.5 in April.
The monthly Consumer Confidence Survey^®, based on a probability-design random sample, is conducted for The Conference Board by Nielsen, a leading global provider of information and analytics around what consumers buy and watch. The cutoff date for the preliminary results was April 17.
“Consumer confidence, which had rebounded in March, gave back all of the gain and more in April,” said Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board. “This month’s retreat was prompted by a softening in current conditions, likely sparked by the recent lackluster performance of the labor market, and apprehension about the short-term outlook. The Present Situation Index declined for the third consecutive month. Coupled with waning expectations, there is little to suggest that economic momentum will pick up in the months ahead.”
Consumers’ appraisal of current-day conditions continued to soften. Those saying business conditions are “good” edged down from 26.7 percent to 26.5 percent. However, those claiming business conditions are “bad” also decreased from 19.4 percent to 18.2 percent. Consumers were less favorable in their assessment of the job market. Those stating jobs are “plentiful” declined from 21.0 percent to 19.1 percent, while those claiming jobs are “hard to get” rose from 25.5 percent to 26.4 percent.

It's apparent from those numbers that people simply aren't buying the "all is well" crap coming from the White House. It's also obvious that consumers still haven't opened their wallets very much so far this year, with only modest increases in consumer spending in February and March. The only thing keeping the economy above water appears to be the Fed's easy money policy. That is supposed to change this summer when the Fed raises interest rates from near zero. But if these indices don't get much better, as Durden predicts, the Fed will maintain their zero interest rate policy indefinitely.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/labor_force_participation_rate_near_record_low.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

State-Funded University Promoting Alliances with Hamas-dominated Palestinian Universities? - Cinnomon Stillwell

by Cinnomon Stillwell

If SFSU President Wong truly supported Abdulhadi’s efforts, he would broadcast that one of his professors has succeeded in setting up a memorandum of understanding with a Hamas-dominated Palestinian university.

Rabab Abdulhadi, director of San Francisco State University (SFSU)’s Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Initiative (AMED) and a committed anti-Israel activist, has long sought an alliance between SFSU and two Palestinian universities, An-Najah and Bir Zeit. The April 22 victory of Hamas, or the Islamic Bloc, in Bir Zeit’s student council elections demonstrates the perversity of this endeavor.

Bir Zeit University, located in the West Bank about a dozen miles north of Jerusalem, was already a seat of Islamist activity. The Hamas-supporters’ win assures that an imprisoned terrorist will hold the title of “honorary chairman” of the student council.

According to Arab-Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh:

Hamas supporters on campus won 26 seats, compared to 16 for their rivals in the Fatah faction, headed by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas.
The results of the election mean that Bilal Barghouti, who is serving 16 life terms in prison for his role in a series of suicide attacks against Israel, has become the “Honorary Chairman of the Bir Zeit University Student Council.”

Abdulhadi’s efforts to forge ties with Bir Zeit and An-Najah -- which put off its April 26 student council election, possibly out of fear of a Hamas victory and ensuing partisan conflict -- dates back at least to January, 2014. At the time, she organized and participated in a controversial, university-funded “Academic and Labor Delegation to Palestine,” during which she met with individuals affiliated with U.S. State Department-designated terrorist organizations. The AMCHA Initiative, an organization that combats campus anti-Semitism, obtained an audio recording of a March, 2014 College of Ethnic Studies (which houses AMED) event to discuss the trip and, in a letter to SFSU President Leslie Wong, noted the following:

[A]t the end of the event, Abdulhadi announced to the audience that she was working towards organizing collaborative agreements between CSU campuses and two Palestinian universities, An-Najah and Birzeit, and she urged students in the audience to let her know if they would be interested in studying at these universities.

In a June, 2014 public statement responding to AMCHA’s allegations, which included improper use of university funds for the trip (a charge SFSU eventually denied), Abdulhadi confirmed that:

[T]he purpose of the trip was to attend an international conference and to research, network, and collaborate with potential university partners towards a possible memorandum of understanding between San Francisco State University (SFSU) and Palestinian universities. . . . During our visit we met with representatives of An-Najah and Birzeit Universities, toward developing the MOU and other collaborative relationships.

In the process, she insisted that:

AMCHA has particularly sought to also attack Palestinian universities, describing them as “well-known for their virulent antisemitism and support of terror” in order to prevent communication and collaboration between the U.S. and Palestinian academies. In fact, An-Najah and Birzeit Universities are highly respected prominent universities in the Arab world.

To the contrary, Bir Zeit University is notorious for an atmosphere in which incitement to violence and expressions of hatred towards Israelis and Jews is ubiquitous, as is support for Hamas and, to a lesser extent, Fatah. The blogger Elder of Ziyon has documented a number of examples, including an “art exhibit” featuring mock Qassam rockets and tributes to “martyrs” (terrorists) and a pro-Hamas march with all the disturbing regalia associated with Gaza’s Islamist  rulers.

According to Matthew Levitt, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, writing in 2007:

During student elections at Bir Zeit University in 2003, Hamas candidates reenacted suicide bombings by blowing up models of Israeli buses. In one Bir Zeit campus debate, a Hamas candidate taunted his Fatah challenger by boasting, “Hamas activists in this University killed 135 Zionists. How many did Fatah activists from Bir Zeit kill?”

Of An-Najah University, Levitt had this to say:

Some of the most notorious Hamas terrorists have held senior positions in the al-Najah faction [of the student council], including Qais Adwan, a former Islamic Bloc leader and head of the al-Najah student council, who was also the head of the Qassam Brigades in the northern West Bank.

Not only did Abdulhadi deny the well-documented nature of these universities, she engaged in rank hypocrisy. A founding member of the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, Abdulhadi signed a 2012 open letter to university presidents objecting to their participation in a delegation to Israel and urging officials not to “pursue institutional relationships between your universities and Israeli universities.”  

While there is no evidence at this time that SFSU finalized a memorandum of understanding with Bir Zeit, An-Najah is a different story. A November, 2014 Facebook post attributed to Abdulhadi and the College of Ethnic Studies -- which is either unavailable to the public or has been removed, but was excerpted in an “SF State Black Alumni Group” post -- noted that:

Today San Francisco State University’s All University Committee on International Programs unanimously voted to recommend that SF State formally collaborate with An-Najah National University in Nablus, Palestine. This is the first time that SFSU will collaborate with any university in a Palestinian, Arab or Muslim community. I am proud, excited and grateful to my colleagues @ An-Najah. It is my honor to be working with you. . . . Next step: Study abroad program in Palestine.

The 2014-2015 annual report for SFSU’s All University Committee on International Programs is dated May, 2014 and thus, does not include this vote. However, a February, 2015 statement at An-Najah University’s website proudly boasts that:

A Memorandum of Understanding was signed on September 10th between An-Najah University and San Fransisco [sic] State University to promote cooperation between the two universities. . . . This agreement . . . was signed by Prof. Maher Natsheh, Acting President of An-Najah, and Dr. Leslie Wong, President of SF State. . . .  The agreement was signed following a visit by Dr. Rabab Abdelhadi [sic] from SF State to An-Najah when she met with An-Najah senior staff and reached the above mentioned agreement.

Given that its faculty was instrumental in forging these relationships, why isn’t SFSU eager to publicize official ties with either An-Najah or, were it to occur, Bir Zeit? Could the fact that both universities are hotbeds of radicalization, as demonstrated by, among other things, the prominence of both Hamas and Fatah in their respective student councils, have anything to do with its reticence?  

If SFSU President Wong truly supported Abdulhadi’s efforts, he would broadcast that one of his professors has succeeded in setting up a memorandum of understanding with a Hamas-dominated Palestinian university. We await his announcement with bated breath.       


Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/05/statefunded_university_promoting_alliances_with_hamasdominated_palestinian_universities.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.