Palestinians Flock to Islamic State - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

• Swedish

• The terror group Islamic State has become extremely popular among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Four recent public opinion polls show that at least one million Palestinians support the Islamic State.
• The Palestinians' two governments, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA), have good reason to be worried about the Islamic State. In recent weeks, Islamic State spokesmen have issued threats against both the PA and Hamas, accusing them of "collaboration" with the "Zionist entity."
• Christian activist Sam Butrous noted that the widespread support for Islamic State among Palestinians is a sign of increased extremism and a denial of Christians' rights in the Holy Land.
• The PA and Hamas can only blame themselves for the surge of Palestinians joining the Islamic State. The two governments allow anti-Western incitement in their mosques and media outlets. Their leaders regularly glorify and endorse Palestinians who carry out terror attacks against Israelis, encouraging others to follow suit. If these Palestinians are unable to attack Israel from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, they travel to Syria and Iraq to join the jihad against Israel's allies, namely the U.S. and other Western countries.
• Palestinian leaders cannot evade responsibility for inspiring dozens of Palestinians to join the Islamic State. The fiery rhetoric of these leaders and ongoing incitement against Israel and the West are further radicalizing Palestinians and driving them into the Islamic State's open arms.

Hardly a week passes without another report of a Palestinian killed while fighting for the Islamic State terror group.

The reports have raised deep concern among many Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A recent report estimated that some 100 Palestinians have already joined Islamic State. Other reports claim that the number is much higher.

According to the report, most of the Palestinians who joined the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are from the Gaza Strip. Another 1000 Palestinian men are believed to be preparing to join Islamic State, but have been unable to fulfill their dream for various reasons, the report revealed.

It is no surprise that most of the Palestinians who have joined the Islamic State are from the Gaza Strip, which has been under the control of Hamas since 2007.

In the past year, various reports have suggested that Islamic State and its supporters have managed to infiltrate the Gaza Strip, where they pose a major threat to Hamas's rule over the area, home to some 1.6 million Palestinians.

Earlier this year, Islamic State supporters organized their first public appearance on the streets of Gaza City, where they called for an Islamic army to destroy Israel and the "enemies of Islam."

Palestinians waving Islamic State flags attempt to storm the French Cultural Center in Gaza City, in January 2015. (Image source: ehna tv YouTube screenshot)

Earlier this week, the Islamic State informed the Yehia family from the West Bank city of Jenin that their son, Said, had been killed while fighting for the terror group near Aleppo in Syria.

The family was told that Said had joined the Islamic State seven months ago. Said's family members said he told them he was travelling to Europe to look for work. Later, however, they learned that he had headed to Syria to fight for the Islamic State.

The two strangers who arrived at the family's home even provided Said's parents and brothers with a photograph of Said's dead body.

In recent months, at least four Palestinians from the Gaza Strip were also reportedly killed while fighting for the Islamic State.

One of them, Abed al-Elah Kishta, 29, of the southern town of Rafah in the Gaza Strip, was killed while fighting for the Islamic State in eastern Libya. Weeks before he was killed, Kishta contacted his family to inform them that he had joined the group.

The second Palestinian from the Gaza Strip was identified as Musa Hijazi, 23. His father, Hassan, said that his son was killed while fighting for the Islamic State in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. The Islamic State later mourned Hijazi as one of its martyrs, referring to him by his nickname Abu Mu'men al-Maqdisi.

A third Palestinian was identified as Wadi Washah, 21, from the Jebalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Washah's family said they were shocked to hear about his death while fighting for the Islamic State in Syria. The family said their son had previously joined Palestinian Islamic Jihad before escaping the Gaza Strip through a smuggling tunnel along the border with Egypt. Wadi's father said that his son had travelled to Syria on instructions from Islamic State-affiliated salafi-jihadi leaders in Gaza. According to the father, Wadi had told him that he had managed to kill dozens of Iranians in Syria.

The fourth Palestinian was identified as Ahmed Badwan, 26, nicknamed Abu Tarek al-Ghazawi, of the Al-Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Sources close to the family said that Badwan had left the Gaza Strip through a smuggling tunnel run by Hamas, and had first joined the Islamic State in Syria, before moving to the group's branch in Iraq. He was killed in a U.S.-led coalition airstrike on an Islamic State base in Iraq, the sources said.

Although the number of Palestinians who have joined the Islamic State remains relatively low, it is evident that the terror group has become extremely popular among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Four public opinion polls published a few weeks ago showed that at least a million Palestinians support the Islamic State.

The polls found that 24% of the Palestinians hold positive views about the Islamic State. Given that there are 1.8 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and another 2.7 million in the West Bank, this means that there are more than one million Palestinians who support Islamic State.

Commenting on the results of the polls, Christian activist Sam Butrous noted that the widespread support for the Islamic State among Palestinians is a sign of increased extremism and a denial of Christians' rights in the Holy Land. "Apparently, 20% of the Palestinians have no problem with expelling their Christian brothers and destroying their churches and turning them into mosques," he wrote. "This is what the Islamic State terror group is already doing in areas under its control."

Christians are not the only ones who should be worried about the Islamic State's growing influence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Palestinians' two governments, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA), also have good reason to be worried. In recent weeks, Islamic State spokesmen have issued threats against both the PA and Hamas, accusing them of "collaboration" with the "Zionist entity."

But the PA and Hamas can only blame themselves for the surge of Palestinians joining the Islamic State. The two governments allow anti-Western incitement in their mosques and media outlets. Their leaders regularly glorify and endorse Palestinians who carry out terror attacks against Israelis, thus encouraging other Palestinians to follow suit. And if these Palestinians are unable to carry out attacks against Israel from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, they travel to Syria and Iraq to join the jihad against Israel's allies, namely the U.S. and other Western countries.

Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip cannot evade responsibility for inspiring dozens of Palestinians to join the Islamic State. The fiery rhetoric of these leaders, in addition to the ongoing incitement against Israel and the West, is further radicalizing Palestinians and driving them into the Islamic State's open arms.

• Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6375/palestinians-islamic-state

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

Nuke Deal or Not, Iran Has Already Declared War on Us - Lawrence A. Franklin

by Lawrence A. Franklin

• U.S. policymakers who hope that the nuclear deal will help nudge the Islamic revolutionary state into becoming a normal member of the international community seem to forget the past. Policymakers, journalists, and intelligence analysts had all predicted that the era of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was a sure sign of the evolution of the revolution. Khatami was replaced by the even more hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
• It seems clear that despite the American political establishment's failure to recognize that a state of war already exists between Iran and the United States, the Islamic Republic has no doubt with whom it is at war.

Iran has been at war with the "Great Satan" (USA) since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Its opening move was the regime's seizure of the American Embassy and its taking U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days in 1979-1980. Technically, the move was an internationally recognized casus belli, legitimate cause for war.

In addition, the Iranian regime's proxy terrorist group, Hezbollah, engineered the murder of 241 U.S. soldiers, sailors, and marines in Lebanon on October 23, 1983. Iran also sponsored the truck bombing that murdered 19 US Air Force personnel at the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia on June 25, 1996,[1] in an attack allegedly executed by a Bahrain-based cell of Hezbollah, with the cooperation of a Saudi-trained Hezbollah cell.[2]

Iran was behind the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.[3] The Islamic Republic's intelligence services facilitated travel across Iran by several of the hijackers in the weeks leading up to 9/11.[4]

Additionally, after the 9/11 attacks, Iran granted refuge, reconstitution, and a base of operations for several high-level al-Qaeda terrorists.[5]

After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, when Tehran activated its underground intelligence network in Iraq to target American troops, Iran was responsible either directly or indirectly for about a third of U.S. casualties in Iraq.[6]

The Islamic Republic also has given military assistance to the Afghan Taliban to kill U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan.[7]

Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) naval assets have repeatedly instigated confrontations with U.S. naval ships in Persian Gulf waters.

IRGC gunboats also have threatened commercial shipping, as well as U.S. and allied military assets in Persian Gulf waters, including the Strait of Hormuz. In late April 2015, Iran seized the Marshall Islands-flagged vessel Maersk Tigris, and detained the ship and crew for weeks. In July, several IRGC gunboats surrounded the U.S.-flagged Maersk Kensington.

The most recent Iranian provocation reportedly occurred this month, on August 4, when an Iranian Navy Vosper Class frigate pointed a deck-mounted machine gun at an American helicopter that had just landed on an allied warship.

Tehran's assistance to the Shia Houthi tribesmen in Yemen has enabled Iran to expand its territorial control of the country. If the Houthi become the dominant force in Yemen, Iran would be in a position to threaten shipping in the Bab el-Mandab Strait, a maritime chokepoint between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. A blockade there, as well as at the Strait of Hormuz on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, would be a clear violation of freedom of navigation on the high seas, a vital international interest acknowledged by the U.S.

Iran has also taken its offensive against the United States to the Western hemisphere. Iran has forged intelligence relationships with several Latin American countries that do not have friendly diplomatic relationships with the U.S., such as Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.

Hezbollah, Iran's proxy terrorist group, has also infiltrated parts of the United States, with sleeper cells in Dearborn, Michigan; Charlotte, North Carolina; and several other locales.[8]

On a strategic political plane, Iran probably believes that it has been able to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its ally, the "Little Satan," Israel, over the Obama Administration's effort to forge a negotiated nuclear treaty with the Iran.[9]

This strategy has also been applied to America's political and military alliances with the conservative Sunni Arab governments on the Arabian Peninsula.[10]

The IRGC also continues to manage several weapons-development projects, including intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) systems capable of launching nuclear-armed re-entry vehicles at the continental United States.[11]

It seems clear that despite the American political establishment's failure to recognize that a state of war already exists between Iran and the United States, the Islamic Republic has no doubt with whom it is at war.

Left: Senior Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani, speaking on July 17 in Tehran, behind a banner reading "We Will Trample Upon America" and "We defeat the United States." Right: Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, proclaims "Death to America" on March 2.

The diminution of American influence in the region, the destruction of the "Zionist Entity" (Israel), and challenging the legitimacy of Sunni Arab Gulf monarchies appear to be the main motive forces driving Iran's foreign policy.

The regime's hardliners use their hostility to the "Great Satan" (America) to demonstrate their loyalty to the Islamic Revolution.

U.S. policymakers who hope that the nuclear deal will help nudge the Islamic revolutionary state into becoming a normal member of the international community seem to forget the past. Policymakers, journalists, and intelligence analysts had all predicted that the era of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was a sure sign of the evolution of the revolution. Khatami was replaced by the even more hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

---

[1] Congressional Testimony in 2002 by FBI former Director Louie Freeh and NPR radio interview and U.S Federal Court Testimony. Freeh accuses Iran's Ministry of Intelligence of supervising truck bomb attack on Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia citing several Saudi citizens and a Lebanese Hezbollah operative.
[2] "The Secret War with Iran" by Ronen Bergman. Free Press, N.Y. 2007. p.195.
[3] US District Court Rules Iran Behind 9/11 Attacks." District Court Judge George B. Daniels, in a decision handed down on 15 December 2011, ruled in Havlish et al v. bin-Laden et al that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
[4] See comments of former DIA Director LTG Michael Flynn and seized Bin Laden documents that detail the relationship, as well as Ronen Bergman's chapter on links between Al-Qaeda and Iran.
[5] 9/11 Commission Report.
[6] U. S. Ambassador James Jeffrey believes that at least a quarter of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq are attributable to Iran. 26 August 2010. Reuters. Other estimates reach the one-third figure.
[7] "Dem Congressman on Iran Sanctions Relief: 'They'll Have a Few Billion Left over to Kill Americans'" by Daniel Greenfield, FrontPageMagazine.com, July 15, 2015. The article quotes former member of the Pentagon's Joint Improvised Explosive Device defeat Organization that 500 U.S. combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan attributed to Iran is probably on the low side.
[8] "The Secret War with Iran" by Ronen Bergman, p.205. "Al-Mabarrat – A Hezbollah Charitable Front in Dearborn, MI?" by Steven Emerson 22 July 2006.
[9] Supreme Leader Khamenei has just published the book "Palestine," in which he writes that one objective of Iranian statecraft is to encourage "Israel Fatigue" in America re its alliance with the "Zionist Entity,"
[10] Several articles on Arab Gulf allies of U.S. having qualms about possible U.S. shift toward an era of cooperation with Iran. For example: "Like Israel, U.S. Arab Allies Fear Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal" by Yaroslav Trofimov, Wall Street Journal, 4 March 2015; "Why Arab Countries Fear the Iran Deal" by Geneive Abdo, The National Interest, 7 April 2015.
[11] Several late July/early August 2015 Congressional hearings, Senate Armed Services Committee, on Iran's ICBM programs.

Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6354/iran-declared-war

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

Iran Is Already Violating the Nuke Deal - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

Will enough Democrats put country over party and defy Obama?

As the congressional vote on President Barack Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran draws closer, the Iranian regime appears to be doing everything it can to show that it has the upper hand as a result of the deal it negotiated with the United States and its five partners. It is either dishonestly twisting certain terms of the deal to justify its misbehavior or simply defying the terms outright. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are not pushing back. Instead, they are pushing hard to avoid a veto-proof congressional vote of disapproval. 

For example, Iran is planning to sign a contract for four advanced Russian surface-to-air S-300 missiles as early as next week, following a visit to Moscow by Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in violation of an international travel ban.  

There have been whimpers of objection from the Obama administration, but no forceful statement that such activities by the Iranian regime will jeopardize the agreement from the get-go. 

Iranian leaders have also declared that their arms shipments to allies in the region, such as their terrorist proxy Hezbollah, will continue despite the United Nations Security Council arms embargo still in effect for the next five years. 

The Obama administration’s response is staggering. According to Kerry, “The arms embargo is not tied to snapback. It is tied to a separate set of obligations. So they are not in material breach of the nuclear agreement for violating the arms piece of it.”

That is all the encouragement the Iranian regime needed to up the ante. According to Debkafile, “Al Qods commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani, acting on the orders of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, this week set up a new Iranian command to fight Israel.” This newly named “Eastern Command” is reportedly set “to start handing out weapons, including missiles, to any Palestinian West Bank group willing to receive them.” This is the same Soleimani with American blood on his hands who recently visited Moscow in violation of the current international travel ban, but who will eventually have sanctions and freezes against him lifted as part of the nuclear deal. 

Meanwhile, to make matters even worse, the Associated Press is reporting that “Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work.” In other words, the UN international inspection team that President Obama has pointed to as the chief verification safeguard will now give way at least in part to Iranian inspectors investigating their own alleged nuclear weaponization development work at a military site declared off limits by Iran to international inspectors. The White House remained “confident” in the viability of the inspection regime despite the confidence game the Iranian regime played with the UN to permit Iran to self-inspect.

Nevertheless, Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives are lining up to support President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. They are willfully ignoring clear evidence that Iran, post-deal, is continuing its pattern of cheating and violating international sanctions and embargoes still in place. Like lemmings jumping over the cliff, these Democrats are willing to ease the Iranian regime’s path towards becoming a threshold nuclear armed state in a little over a decade, out of blind partisan loyalty to Obama. 

To date, the Obama administration has the declared support of 23 Democratic and nominally “independent” senators it will need to sustain an expected veto by President Obama of any resolution passed by Congress to disapprove the deal. This tally is according to The Hill’s Senate whip list compiled as of August 18th. The administration needs at least 34 senators on Obama’s side to sustain a veto. Six Democratic senators are said to be leaning towards a favorable vote, including Senator Richard Blumenthal (Conn.). Fifteen Senate Democrats are still undecided.

So far, only two Democratic senators have shown the courage to serve the public interest, rather than narrow partisan interests. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) became the second Democratic senator to announce his willingness to vote against the president from his own party in opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran. Senator Chuck Schumer had announced his opposition on August 6th.  

On the House side, according to The Hill’s Whip List as of August 19th, 55 Democratic representatives have indicated that they are planning to vote in support of the deal. Fourteen more Democrats are leaning in favor. Twelve have declared their opposition to the deal so far. Three are leaning against and 57 are listed as undecided. Obama will prevail on a vote to sustain his expected veto of a disapproval resolution that passes both houses of Congress if he loses no more than 43 House Democrats (assuming the Republicans in the House all vote to override the veto). 

Speaking at Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations on August 18^th when he announced his opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran, Senator Menendez provided a very detailed explanation of his decision.  He characterized the fundamental flaw in the deal this way: “The agreement that has been reached failed to achieve the one thing it set out to achieve – it failed to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state at a time of its choosing. In fact, it authorizes and supports the very road map Iran will need to arrive at its target.”

Senator Menendez objected to the exchange of permanent sanctions relief for Iran in return for “only temporary – temporary – limitations on its nuclear program – not a rolling-back, not dismantlement, but temporary limitations.” The deal, the senator added, “is based on ‘hope.’ Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy."

Senator Menendez also took a swipe at President Obama’s attempt to tie opponents of his deal to supporters of the 2003 war in Iraq. “Unlike President Obama's characterization of those who have raised serious questions about the agreement, or who have opposed it,” the senator said, “I did not vote for the war in Iraq, I opposed it, unlike the Vice President and the Secretary of State, who both supported it.” 

The New Jersey senator reminded his audience that the purpose of the negotiations from the U.S. perspective had been “to dismantle all -- or significant parts -- of Iran's illicit nuclear infrastructure to ensure that it would not have nuclear weapons capability at any time.  Not shrink its infrastructure. Not limit it. But fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons capability.”

Senator Menendez cataloged examples of early assurances from the Obama administration of red lines that were later wiped away. For example, Secretary of State John Kerry had declared in the early days of engaging with Iran that Arak, Iran's plutonium reactor, would be dismantled. That is not the case under the deal Obama and Kerry signed off on.  The underground Fordow enrichment facility was to be closed. That too was not part of the final deal. The Iranians, Senator Menendez said, were supposed “to come absolutely clean about their weaponization activities at Parchin [their military facility] and agree to promise anytime anywhere inspections.” That too, in Senator Menendez’s words, “fell by the wayside.” Now we have learned that the Iranians will be able to self-inspect.
In addition, not even one existing centrifuge will be destroyed. Some are just being disconnected. Thousands will remain in operation. Research and development on centrifuges will be permitted to continue even during the first ten years of the deal.

“While I have many specific concerns about this agreement, my overarching concern is that it requires no dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and only mothballs that infrastructure for 10 years,” Senator Menendez explained. “We lift sanctions, and -- at year eight -- Iran can actually start manufacturing and testing advanced IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges that enrich up to 15 times the speed of its current models.  At year 15, Iran can start enriching uranium beyond 3.67 percent – the level at which we become concerned about fissile material for a bomb.  At year 15, Iran will have NO limits on its uranium stockpile.”

Under the deal, Iran will get significant sanctions relief within the first year, while its obligations stretch out for a decade or more. And there is a major concession in the deal that has gotten very little attention to date. Iran’s negotiators out-maneuvered Secretary of State Kerry’s team into conceding away the right to re-impose or extend U.S. sanctions beyond their expiration date. Senator Menendez noted that "we will have to refrain from reintroducing or reimposing the Iran Sanctions Act I authored – which expires next year -- that acted significantly to bring Iran to the table in the first place." 

Iran has agreed only to provisionally apply the Additional Protocol to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is supposed to ensure continuing access to suspect sites in a country, and only formally adopt it when Congress has abolished all sanctions.

Senator Menendez, like Senator Schumer, dismisses the either-or choice between Obama’s deal and war, which Obama and his supporters are offering as a red herring. “If there is a fear of war in the region,” said Senator Menendez, “it is fueled by Iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an agreement that allows Iran to possess an industrial-sized nuclear program, and enough money in sanctions relief to continue to fund its hegemonic intentions throughout the region."

The senator suggested offering Iran some limited inducements to return to the negotiating table, and outlined some parameters that the Obama administration should follow in seeking better terms. These include “the immediate ratification by Iran of the Additional Protocol to ensure that we have a permanent international arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites,” closing the Fordow enrichment facility, resolving the ‘possible military dimensions’ of Iran’s program” before there can be any permanent sanctions relief, banning centrifuge R&D for the duration of the agreement, and extending to at least 20 years the duration of the agreement. 

Senator Menendez also wants to extend the authorization of the Iran Sanctions Act beyond its expiration in 2016 “to ensure that we have an effective snapback option.” And he wants a clear declaration of U.S. policy by the President and Congress that “we will use all means necessary to prevent Iran from producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, as well as building or buying one, both during and after any agreement.”

Unfortunately, the procedure for congressional involvement with the nuclear deal has turned the Constitution’s treaty ratification process on its head. Instead of requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate to ratify the nuclear deal if had been handled as a treaty, President Obama will get his way unless both houses of Congress override his veto of a disapproval resolution by a two-thirds vote. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that opponents of the nuclear deal will likely lose in a vote to override an Obama veto. Why the Republican majority in the Senate ever agreed to such a legislative trap is beyond comprehension.

Regardless of the eventual outcome, at the very least the leaders of the House and Senate must insist that a resolution of disapproval be voted upon on the merits. Each representative and senator should be required to go on the record in a roll-call vote, indicating his or her vote of yea or nay. This means that Democrats in the Senate should not be permitted to hide behind a filibuster to avoid an up-or-down vote. If the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster and allow a majority of the Senate to pass or reject a disapproval resolution is not attainable, Senate Majority Leader McConnell must stand up and take a page out of former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s playbook. Senator McConnell should deploy the so-called "nuclear option.” This would mean eliminating the filibuster that could otherwise be used by Democrats to block a vote on what is likely to be a once-in-a-lifetime agreement with life and death consequences for national security. 

If the Democratic senators supporting President Obama’s deal believe that it is the only realistic alternative to war, then they should have the backbone to put their names on the record in support of the deal. If they try to duck their legislative responsibility to their constituents and the nation, then Senator McConnell must act promptly to take away their filibuster fig leaf. If Senator McConnell does not move aggressively in this direction as and when necessary, he will show as much cravenness as the Democrats exploiting the filibuster.   

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259854/iran-already-violating-nuke-deal-joseph-klein

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

Israel urges UN to investigate official for misconduct - AP and Israel Hayom Staff

by AP and Israel Hayom Staff

Head of U.N.'s Western Asia economic agency Rima Khalaf "abused her position to promote an anti-Israel agenda in flagrant violation of U.N. principles," Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor says in a letter to Secretary-General Ban • Khalaf denies allegations.

 

Rima Khalaf, Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia | Photo credit: Wikimedia

Israel's ambassador to the U.N. is urging its internal watchdog to investigate the head of a U.N. agency for misconduct, accusing her of "modern-day anti-Semitism." Last year, he tried unsuccessfully to get Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to suspend Rima Khalaf.

Ambassador Ron Prosor met Carmen Lapointe, the head of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, late last month and called for a disciplinary hearing against Khalaf, a Jordanian who heads the Beirut-based U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, which promotes economic and social development in 17 Arab countries.

A letter from the ambassador to Lapointe obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press said, "Ms. Khalaf has abused her position in order to promote an anti-Israel agenda, in a flagrant violation of U.N. obligations and principles."

Khalaf told The Associated Press in Beirut on Wednesday that she stands by her statements highlighting "Israel's documented violations of international law against the Palestinian people" and rejecting "the concept of religious or ethnic purity of states."

"I am surprised that rejecting discrimination, and reiterating the principles of equality and justice in the U.N. Charter, can still be contested by anyone," Khalaf said.

Prosor gave a series of examples, including her support for the June 29 "illegal and provocative attempt" to break Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, a July 7 reference which he said equated "terrorism with a fight for 'justice,'" and what he called "a hate-fueled report" on Arab integration in March 2014 "that once again promotes anti-Israel incitement by blaming Israel for shortcomings in the Arab world."

"Ms. Khalaf's outrageous criticism against the State of Israel and the discrediting of its government undermine the integrity of the United Nations and amount to serious misconduct, by U.N. standards," Prosor said in the July 27 letter. "I call on you to initiate an urgent investigation into this matter."

Lapointe said late Wednesday, when asked whether her office would investigate, that "OIOS is not allowed by our mandate to discuss whether or not it has opened a case, or the status of a case that may have been opened."

Last year, Israel urged the secretary-general to suspend Khalaf for anti-Israeli statements but he refused.

In a speech in late February 2014, Khalaf referred to "Israel's adamancy that it is a Jewish State, which violates the rights of both the Muslim and Christian indigenous populations and revives the concept of state ethnic and religious purity, which caused egregious human suffering during the 20th century."

Prosor strongly objected to her reference to Israel practicing religious and ethnic purity like the Nazis in World War II, and to "the appalling claim" in the March 2014 report that Hitler sought to facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine when he was responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews.

Khalaf said she did not claim that Hitler sought to create a safe haven for the Jewish people in the Middle East.

"Nothing is comparable to the atrocities of the Nazis, especially the Holocaust," Khalaf said. "Yet this should serve as a reminder for the world of the disastrous consequences of discriminating among people based on their religion or ethnic origin."

Israel's U.N. Mission said Prosor told Lapointe during their meeting that "Israel is already fighting against hate and incitement in enough arenas every day" and "will not remain silent" about Khalaf's remarks.

AP and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=27719

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

Rabbis for Hamas, Obama and Iran - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

Jews for Destroying the Jewish State.

 

In 2008, Elliot Dorff joined Rabbis for Obama in their claim that Senator Obama would be a “leader in the fight against serious threats to Israel.”

Dorff, a Beverly Hills-based clergyman, showed a deep grasp of geopolitical issues when he claimed that because of President Bush, “now the Taliban inhabit Iraq, where they never used to be.” This would have come as news to both the Taliban and Iraq. But Rabbis for Obama kept Dorff’s testimonial up because no one there seemed to know any better or know anything except how awful Israel is.

Like many of the Rabbis for Obama, Dorff was a left-wing radical who could be counted on to sign any letter attacking Israel. In 2010, he joined the unofficially nicknamed ‘Rabbis for Hamas’ by signing a letter demanding that Israel end the blockade of the genocidal Islamic terrorist group.

Elliot Dorff had also signed an earlier letter praising the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza, which led the area to be taken over by Hamas. But this was only to be expected from a member of J Street, serving on the anti-Israel group’s Rabbinic Cabinet Executive Council. 

Now Elliot Dorff, who has never tired of being destructive and wrong, has signed on to yet another bad letter. After Rabbis for Obama and ‘Rabbis for Hamas’, he has signed on to ‘Rabbis for Iran’.

The letter in support of a deal that Obama admitted will give Iran zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb, is signed by many of the same Dorffs who had signed on to Rabbis for Obama and Rabbis for Hamas.

John Friedman of the Rabbinic Cabinet of the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, another left-wing anti-Israel group, signed all three letters. The “Alliance”, also known as Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, called on Israel to recognize Hamas, condemned Israel for taking out the co-founder of Hamas and described Muslim terrorist massacres of Jews as “resistance”.

Friedman had even participated in the “Fast for Gaza” in support of the Hamas-ruled territory.

Five of the vice chairs of Rabbis for Obama and nearly half its members had signed an earlier “Alliance” letter urging President Bush to conduct "constructive engagement" with Hamas.

Many of the Hamas Rabbis have returned to sign the letter in support of Iran’s nuclear enrichment deal. They include Sharon Kleinbaum, another radical member of J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet Executive Council, who faced a member revolt over her extreme anti-Israel views which included reading the names of dead Hamas terrorists alongside Israeli casualties from the pulpit. 

Sharon Kleinbaum supported providing space to Queers Against Israeli Apartheid and had also participated in the Fast for Gaza. 

Burton Visotzky had signed on to Rabbis for Obama, Rabbis for Hamas and Rabbis for Iran. He was the National Co-Chair of Rabbis for Obama 2012, another member of J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet Executive Council and had worked together with ISNA.

Visotzky (along with Dorff) even joined ISNA, an organization linked to funding of Hamas, in a letter in support of Obama’s pressure on Israel. Two other signatories of that letter, Paul Menitoff and Peter Knobel, had also signed on to Rabbis for Hamas and the current Rabbis for Iran letter.  

Paul Menitoff had already become infamous for his 2002 letter to Bush calling for US troops to occupy Israel and demanding full scale sanctions on the Jewish State in support of a Palestinian Muslim terror state. While leftist clergy might be against the occupation of Iraq and the Israeli blockade of Hamas, some were disturbingly enthusiastic about an American occupation of Israel.

Menitoff is a co-chair of J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet and was one of the 2012 Rabbis for Obama.

Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T'ruah (formerly Rabbis for Human Rights), yet another establishment left-wing anti-Israel group, has signed on to the Rabbis for Iran letter as well as the Rabbis for Hamas letter. She is another co-chair of the Rabbinic Cabinet of J Street. 

Jacobs insisted that Jews needed to “repent” before Muslim terrorists and whined last year that her fellow liberal clergy were afraid to attack Israel “because they get slammed by their right-wing congregants”. She has accused Jews living in Jerusalem of being “settlers” and advocates an apartheid that excludes Jews from living in those parts of the Holy City which were under Muslim occupation.  

Jill Jacobs does not advocate against Muslims living in Jerusalem. Only against Jews living in Jerusalem.

Rachel Mikva, the daughter of Obama crony Abner Mikva, as one of the Rabbis for Obama claimed that, “Anyone who looks at Sen. Obama's record will see that he has been and remains a staunch supporter of Israel.” She insisted that, “God has graced us with an exceptional candidate for the presidency”.

It’s unknown who Rachel Mikva’s god is, but it’s a safe bet that he isn’t the G-d of Israel. It’s likely that the name of Mikva’s god is Arnold Jacob Wolf, a close friend of Obama and militant enemy of Israel.

Wolf had signed the Rabbis for Hamas letter as part of a long career of advocacy against Israel.  He was the co-founder of Breira, one of the establishment anti-Israel groups, and worked with Pol Pot genocide denier Noam Chomsky on another anti-Israel group. He was a Vice Chair of Rabbis for Obama and a board member of the "Alliance". Wolf however died before he could sign the Rabbis for Iran letter.

Rachel Mikva is part of J Street’s rabbinic cabinet; she has signed letters against Israel in the past, and is front and center on the Rabbis for Iran letter. 

The most infamous figure on the list though may be Chaim Seidler-Feller, who has signed the current Rabbis for Iran letter and was also a signatory of the Rabbis for Hamas letter. Seidler-Feller had also joined Norman Lear and the director of an episode of Masters of Sex in an earlier pro-deal letter.

Chaim Seidler-Feller was a founding member of the anti-Israel group Americans for Peace Now, even if he wasn't a particularly peaceful person, engaging in angry confrontations with pro-Israel activists.

In one of the worst incidents, he violently attacked two Jewish women at UCLA, kicking and scratching one of them while trying to throw her down the stairs. 

"I was saved from possible concussion by several bystanders who pulled him off me in time... He assaulted me three times in the course of several minutes, and each time I had to be rescued by helpful bystanders," the victim described.

“I saw my rabbi take swings to Neuwirth’s face and kicks to her legs," one eyewitness wrote.
"I am deeply sorry that I hit, kicked and scratched you," Chaim Seidler-Feller would later write. "By taking these unprovoked actions, I have contradicted the pluralism, peace and tolerance about which I so often preach."

But that pluralism, peace and tolerance only goes one way with the left. Toward the terrorists.

And that is what this is really about. When you read about a few hundred “Rabbis” signing a letter against Israel and for Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah, look closer and you will see the same few names. These names are the banners of a well-funded network of anti-Israel organizations. They are united by a deep hatred for Israel and the Jewish people, by radical leftist politics and by support for terrorists.

They will put on a modicum of moderation so that their congregants don’t realize how extreme and hateful their “spiritual leaders” are, but sometimes they show what is underneath the smiles.

Chaim Seidler-Feller showed his true face when he attacked two Jewish women for supporting Israel. Many of the other names on this list show their true faces when they sign letters attacking Israel.

Now these relentless opponents of the Jewish State want us to believe that the Iran deal will be good for Israel.  Just as they claimed that Obama would be good for Israel.

These left-wing activists call themselves Rabbis, just as Obama calls himself a Christian. But they all share a common faith, not in any divinity, but in revolution and the tyranny of the left. They support Iran and Hamas because they share their hatred for America and Israel. 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259835/rabbis-hamas-obama-and-iran-daniel-greenfield

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

The Persian cat guards the nuclear cream - Boaz Bismuth

by Boaz Bismuth

How is there still anyone who does not understand why Israel opposes the nuclear deal with Iran? Rather than being a deal of the brave, it is a deal of the naive. What other secrets will we soon find out about the deal?

 

A satellite image of the Parchin military site in Iran | Photo credit: AP

What a bizarre world! The Associated Press revealed on Tuesday that, under the terms of a secret deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate the Parchin military site, where it is suspected that Iran carried out nuclear weapons development activities. You read that correctly. The cat will get to guard the cream. No need to worry, friends.

The date on Tuesday was Aug. 19, not April 1, so this was not a prank. By the same "healthy" logic used by world powers, Israel should let Hamas run the Iron Dome system during the next war in the Gaza Strip, and the Interior Ministry should give up its authority to stem illegal migration. We must adapt to the new world we live in. And what a strange world it is! 

Over the past decade, Iran never stopped lying and cheating as it built three secret nuclear facilities, and the world nobly turned the other cheek. How is there still anyone who does not understand why Israel opposes the nuclear deal with Iran? Are there any Israelis who think it is wrong to oppose the deal? A deal of the brave it is not. Rather, it is a deal of the naive.

Since the deal was signed in Vienna on July 14, there have been non-stop surprises, including revelations about secret components of the deal. And recently, the IAEA chief said he was obligated to keep the details of his organization's side agreements with Iran confidential. If the AP report proves to be true, he should hang his head in shame.

Over the past month, during which opposition to the deal has only grown, we have had trouble digesting numerous problematic aspects of the deal. For example, we discovered Article 10 on Page 142, which stipulates that world powers and Iran will foster "cooperation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to protect against, and respond to, nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems." Absolutely unbelievable!

Later, we heard U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (future Nobel Prize winner?) admit to Congress that he had not seen the IAEA's side agreements with Iran, but, thank God, he had been briefed on them.

And now, we find out Iran will inspect itself at Parchin. If this absurdity is true, it would be best for Kerry to declare, "I didn't know." 

Under the deal, Iran will provide its own soil samples from Parchin, and it will have an advance notice of 24 days before inspections of suspicious sites can be conducted. American comedian Jackie Mason joked that restaurants in New York face a tougher inspections system.

By agreeing to this deal with Iran, Obama produced a very funny episode of "It's a Wonderful Country" (an Israeli comedy show), but in Persian rather than Hebrew. 

It is now easy to understand why, within weeks of the deal being signed, the Iranians were saying that no foreign entities would enter their military sites. They knew what they were talking about, as they were aware that world powers had agreed to forgo inspections of Parchin. 

So what's next? What other secrets will we find out about the nuclear deal? Perhaps, when the deal expires, Iran will be allowed to conduct nuclear weapons tests with world powers?

Boaz Bismuth

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=27715&hp=1

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

While Obama Sleeps, Russia Gobbles up Ukraine - Daniel John Sobieski

by Daniel John Sobieski

Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno said Wednesday that Russia is the most dangerous to the United States.

President Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney in the 2012 debates for saying that Russia was our greatest geopolitical threat. Now, as Russia continues to gobble up pieces of Ukraine under the cover of a phony cease-fire, President Obama’s outgoing Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Roy Odierno, said exactly the same thing on Wednesday:

Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno said Wednesday that Russia is the most dangerous to the United States.

“I believe Russia is the most dangerous because of a couple things,” Odierno said in the press conference.
Odierno said he considers Russia the most dangerous because of some of their intents and their capabilities in Ukraine.
“First they are more mature than some other of our potential adversaries and I think they have some stated intents that concern me in terms of how the Cold War ended,” Odierno said. “They have shown some significant capability in Ukraine to do operations that are fairly significant.”

Odierno’s assessment of Russian capabilities and intention’s dovetails perfectly with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s expressed view that the demise of the Soviet Union was one of the greatest disasters of modern times. His actions in Ukraine in conjunction with massive Russian rearmament show his desire to reassemble the old Soviet Union.

In his annual address to parliament in 2005, old KGB boss emeritus Putin made the grotesque claim that the "demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest political catastrophe of the century," demonstrating a nostalgia for what he considers the good old days.

Back in 2012 when Romney put Russia at the top of the geopolitical threat list, President Obama gave a mocking response more worthy of a former community organizer rather than the leader of the free world. As Investor’s Business Daily noted:

"You said Russia. Not al-Qaida. You said Russia," Obama rebuked him regarding our biggest threats. "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because... the Cold War's been over for 20 years," said the president who promised the Russians more flexibility as he disarmed the United States.

If the Cold War was over, somebody forgot to tell Moscow, for their belligerence towards Ukraine is straight out of the playbook of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. They ruthlessly repressed with Soviet armor the 1956 Hungary rebellion and the 1968 Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia.

Putin’s approach is perhaps more subtle, arming so-called “separatists” rather than sending in Soviet armored columns, but it is a distinction without a difference. Attacks by these separatists, with the full knowledge and support of Moscow, have increase markedly in recent days, making a mockery of the February cease-fire:

Ukraine’s military reported 127 attacks on Monday by the pro-Russian rebels, including an assault by 400 separatists and tanks about 30 miles north of Mariupol, a strategic government-held port in southeastern Ukraine….
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry “expressed grave concern” Thursday about the escalation in rebel attacks in a phone call with Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart. Kerry urged Russia to end its support for the separatists and stick to the Minsk ceasefire signed in mid-February….
Luke Coffey, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom who studies European security issues, said in an interview that Russian President Vladimir Putin is pursuing a “very incremental, deliberate, slow” strategy in Ukraine. By taking small pieces of territory over a months-long conflict, he can blunt a concerted response from an international community that has devoted attention to other immediate issues, such as the Iran nuclear deal.

Grave concerns and sternly worded letters carry no weight with Putin, whose stated ambitions are clear. President Obama has done less than nothing, sending only supplies worthy of a Boy Scout Jamboree rather than a sovereign nation resisting Russian aggression. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko warned Congress last September that Russian actions in the Ukraine were the start of a new Cold War:

On Thursday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko gave a 40-minute speech to a rare joint session of Congress alerting lawmakers to the plight of his country under Russia's creeping "Anschluss."
Poroshenko once again pled for meaningful aid, including an affiliation with NATO, and warned that a new Iron Curtain may soon descend as Vladimir Putin tries to reassemble the Soviet Union whose demise he has publicly mourned….
In March, Ukraine asked for arms and ammunition, intelligence support, aviation fuel and night vision goggles. The Pentagon agreed only to provide the Ukrainians with supplies of U.S. military rations known as Meals Ready To Eat, or MREs.
This time Ukraine did not get much more than that — just some peripheral gear such as night-vision goggles and helmets. But once again it received no lethal aid that Poroshenko's country desperately needs, such as requested anti-tank weaponry.

Just as Obama failed to aid Iran’s “Green Revolution” in Iran in 2009 when it might have brought the mullahs to their knees and nipped Iran’s nuclear threat in the bud, he is allowing Putin and Russia to take the first steps toward rebooting the old “evil empire” President Ronald Reagan worked so hard to defeat, Like Hitler’s 1936 march into the Rhineland it will lead to a bad end.


Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.    

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/while_obama_sleeps_russia_gobbles_up_ukraine.html

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

Liberal Jews afraid to oppose Iran deal - Vic Rosenthal

by Vic Rosenthal

Hat tip: Jean-Charles Bensoussan

The Iran deal serves multiple purposes for the administration, such as advancing its goals of extracting the US from the Middle East and ending the era of American world leadership. It is also intended to weaken Israel, which it sees as a colonial power oppressing the real ‘owners’ of the Middle East.

As many of you know, I returned to live in Israel a year ago after 26 years in the place I consider my beloved hometown, Fresno California, located in the large valley that runs down the center of the state. It is more or less equidistant from Los Angeles and San Francisco; politically it is on a different planet. Its establishment is solidly socially and politically conservative, although Democrats have a slight edge in voter registration. The main industries are agriculture and related occupations, and there is a branch of the California State University known for its business and ag schools. Fresno was the home of noted writer William Saroyan and also a number of surprisingly good poets.

Fresno has a tiny Jewish community, no more than 1000 families in a metropolitan area of about a half million people. On several occasions I was told that I was the first Jew my interlocutor had met. I never noticed anyone checking for horns, though.

There is a Reform Temple with about 350 adult members, a much smaller Conservative congregation and a Chabad house. There are several churches on any non-residential block, including Catholic, several kinds of Orthodox, and countless Protestant denominations.

The three Congressmen representing the Fresno area are two Republicans (Jeff Denham and Devin Nunes) and one Democrat, Jim Costa. The Republicans are opposed to the nuclear deal with Iran, but Costa is still undecided. As part of its campaign against the deal, AIPAC is holding ‘townhall’ meetings with its members and undecided congresspersons. Tonight there will be such a meeting with Jim Costa in Fresno.

It will take place in an Evangelical church, the Cornerstone Church of Pastor Jim Franklin.

This seemed strange to me. Why would AIPAC hold a meeting in a church, one which happens to be located in downtown Fresno about as far from most of the Jewish population as possible? Oh, it’s a great facility, modern and attractive, and Franklin is one of the most solidly pro-Israel people you will find anywhere. But aren’t most of AIPAC’s members Jewish?

Temple Beth Israel, the Reform congregation, also a large modern facility, located on the other side of town, would seem to be the appropriate place. But the event is not being held there, and in fact the Temple decided not to move its scheduled board meeting from this evening, which will make it difficult for the board members to attend the AIPAC event. When I inquired, I was told that the rabbi felt the Iran issue would be “too divisive” for the Temple.

You can smell the fear. This is what American liberal Judaism has come to.

AIPAC is a non-partisan organization whose objective is to lobby American politicians in support of Israel. Until recently American Jews have also supported Israel regardless of whether they were Democrats (most were) or Republicans.

But as the Democratic Party moved leftward – a move that sharply accelerated with the election of Barack Obama – Jews began to find themselves conflicted. The anti-Israel narrative formerly associated only with the extreme Left became more and more part of the conventional wisdom in liberal circles. An emblematic event took place at the Democratic National Convention in 2012 when language referring to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was removed and reinserted to a chorus of boos.

Now that Barack Obama has placed his prestige and authority on the line for the Iran deal which Israel (and AIPAC) strongly oppose, the conflict became even sharper. The Iran deal serves multiple purposes for the administration, such as advancing its goals of extracting the US from the Middle East and ending the era of American world leadership. It is also intended to weaken Israel, which it sees as a colonial power oppressing the real ‘owners’ of the Middle East. This project requires separating Israel from its traditional support in the US.

Obama and his people chose to play the Jew card. By presenting opponents of the deal as traitors and warmongers – and Jewish ones particularly as disloyal – the administration is trying to make pro-Israel expression uncomfortable, especially for Jews. When Obama talked about “tens millions of dollars in advertising” and “the same people who argued for the war in Iraq” they heard “Jewish money” and “Jewish neo-cons.” His thousands of surrogates on social media were far less subtle.

This strategy is having its desired effect. Liberal American Jews are being forced to choose between support for the Jewish homeland and what they perceive as loyalty to their country. The Reform movement as a whole preferred not to take a stand on the deal, and apparently the Fresno contingent sees it as too damaging to their fragile unity even to discuss. But this is exactly what they should discuss.

It’s interesting that a movement which values ‘involvement’ and ‘social action’ so strongly and which purports to favor open discussion and democracy above all, has fled from engagement with this particular issue, because it’s “too divisive.” This isn’t just hypocrisy. A big part of the problem is that American Jews have been manipulated by demagogic techniques that appealed to their deep-seated fear of the traditional antisemitic accusations of disloyalty.

AIPAC’s event will be held in an Evangelical church in Fresno because Evangelical Christians, in Fresno and in general, still have more courage to stand up for the survival of a Jewish state than Reform Jews.


Vic Rosenthal

Source: http://abuyehuda.com/2015/08/liberal-jews-afraid-to-oppose-iran-deal/

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