Saturday, June 6, 2015

The concessions to Iran keep on coming - Jennifer Rubin

by Jennifer Rubin

Hat Tip: Dr. Carolyn Tal

“In whatever diplomatic formula is implemented, we are likely to run into a wall of Russian and Chinese intransigence and lose the power of American economic coercion in response to Iranian cheating or challenging of the IAEA.” That essentially means that once lifted, sanctions won’t be reactivated in any meaningful time period.

If you are concerned about a rotten deal with Iran that might actually begin a Middle East nuclear arms race and put Iran on a glide path to getting nuclear weapons, you might be taking solace in the notion that there is no way the sides will reach agreement on issues such as anywhere/anytime inspections or on snapback sanctions. Well, get ready for a series of accommodations that essentially give Iran everything it wants.
Reuters reports: “Six world powers have agreed on a way to restore U.N. sanctions on Iran if the country breaks the terms of a future nuclear deal, clearing a major obstacle to an accord ahead of a June 30 deadline, Western officials told Reuters.” How will this work? I hope you’re sitting down:
As part of the new agreement on sanctions snapback, suspected breaches by Iran would be taken up by a dispute-resolution panel, likely including the six powers and Iran, which would assess the allegations and come up with a non-binding opinion, the officials said.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would also continue regularly reporting on Iran’s nuclear program, which would provide the six powers and the Security Council with information on Tehran’s activities to enable them to assess compliance.
If Iran was found to be in non-compliance with the terms of the deal, then U.N. sanctions would be restored.
The officials did not say precisely how sanctions would be restored but Western powers have been adamant that it should take place without a Security Council vote, based on provisions to be included in a new U.N. Security Council resolution to be adopted after a deal is struck.
No, seriously — that’s the plan. We’re going to allow Iran to be part of the “dispute resolution” and then let Russia and China get a veto in the Security Council. An official with a pro-Israel organization dismisses the plan, saying, “It is preposterous to believe that a Rube Goldberg type mechanism can be erected to stop or punish Iran from violating a treaty. If Iran is allowed to retain a nuclear infrastructure, you can count on them to find a way to break out to a nuclear weapon.”
The plan, in fact, is a formula for paralysis. “Whatever scheme the Russians, Chinese and Iranians agree to, it is likely to neutralize the power of U.S. secondary sanctions and ‘multilateralize’ the snapback sanctions mechanism,” says Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “In whatever diplomatic formula is implemented, we are likely to run into a wall of Russian and Chinese intransigence and lose the power of American economic coercion in response to Iranian cheating or challenging of the IAEA.” That essentially means that once lifted, sanctions won’t be reactivated in any meaningful time period. Dubowitz explains: “Without effective economic coercion to enforce the deal, Iran will be able to inch-out or sneakout to a bomb or wait patiently for 10-15 years when most of the restrictions on its program will sunset. At that point, after hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief, Iran will have a powerful economy increasingly immunized against any future snapback scenario.”
But, you ask, how could the administration agree to such a formula, given that the president is so concerned about his name being on a deal that allows Iran to go nuclear? To be blunt, the point is now not to get a good deal, but any deal. Whatever problems occur downstream will be blamed on his successors. Michael Doran, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, observes, “President Obama has developed an elaborate fiction designed to blunt the criticism of those who say that he has traded temporary and reversible concessions by Iran for major permanent concession by the United States. The concept of ‘snap-back sanctions’ is at the center of this fictive policy, because it leaves the impression that the ground that the United States has ceded can be easily — no, automatically — regained if Iran cheats on its agreement.” This is why, he reminds us, many critics  spotted “the impossibility of achieving a true snap-back mechanism” from the get-go.
Moreover, the pattern of willful blindness to Iranian infractions has already been established by this administration, says Michael Makovsky of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). “After cutting a deal with Iran those countries will have an incentive to overlook violations so as not admit to failure, at least while President Obama is in power,” he tells me. “He has insisted Iran has fulfilled the Joint Plan of Action of January 2014, even though that’s not true.”
So now, as Doran and others wonder, will anyone care? As a starting point, the Israelis and our Sunni allies will care. The latter have already figured out that the deal is a canard and have vowed to proceed with their own nuclear weapons programs. That should, one hopes, alert serious U.S. lawmakers who already have raised concerns over the very issues the president is trying to paper over. And those who want to be the next commander in chief should be forced to weigh in, thereby demonstrating whether they are serious about preventing the Iranians from going nuclear or are willing to accept the president’s fictions.
The administration will insist all is well since the Iranians have changed their outlook and, besides, there is no alternative. Both statements are false. The Iranians’  international aggression, chiseling on the Joint Plan of Action, refusal to come clean on past illicit activities and ongoing human rights abuses tell us that the regime is very much the same as it has always been. As for an alternative, Makovsky suggests, for example, that “the IAEA technocrats or perhaps the French government alone, which is the most serious about preventing a nuclear Iran, make the determination [about violations].”
But the real problem here is in letting Iran keep its infrastructure. Having done that, it is nearly impossible to devise a foolproof system for detecting violations and delivering consequences sufficient to deter further violations. The only viable solution if we are truly interested in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is to reimpose sanctions, begin to check its activities in the region, make the threat of force credible and then start negotiations from scratch. Anything else will simply amount to putting a stamp of approval on a nuclear-armed revolutionary Islamic state.

Jennifer Rubin


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

Egyptian Historian Maged Farag in Support of Normalized Relations with Israel - MEMRI


We Must Focus on Our Own Interests, Not on the Palestinian Cause

In a recent TV interview, Egyptian historian Maged Farag called for normalized relations with Israel, saying that Egypt would benefit from cultural and economic exchange, from tourism, and from Israel's advanced agricultural and industrial technology. "For 70 years, the Palestinian cause has brought Egypt and the Egyptians nothing but harm, destruction, and expense," said Farag. "We should think with a scientific and open mind, with our eyes set on the future," said the historian, who recently visited Israel to attend a conference on Egyptian Jewry.

Following are excerpts from the interview, which aired on the Egyptian Mehwar TV channel on May 26, 2015.

Interviewer:  You were quoted as saying that we should drop the Palestinian cause, and focus on normalizing our relations with Israel, and thus becoming its friends and buddies. Are you serious?!

Majed Farag:  What I'm saying is that we should pay attention to the interests of our country. There are no such things as eternal enmity or eternal love.There are only eternal interests. We should identify our country's interest. Churchill once said that he was ready to cooperate with the Devil in the interest of his country. As a man who knows a little bit about history and about international relations, I believe that it is in our interest to maintain normal relations with Israel. Of course, we have the right to maintain caution in these relations...

Interviewer:  Are you talking about national security?

Majed Farag:  With regard to national security, according to my information, there is cooperation, and there is dialogue on the political, security, and military levels between Egypt and Israel. The state is not the problem. The problem lies with the people, who still live the old ideology and the cultural heritage on which we were raised. Our generation was raised upon hatred and upon these people being barbaric...

Interviewer:  I don't like them.

Majed Farag:  You have the right not to like them.

Interviewer:  But we were forced to confront them...

Majed Farag:  Look, there is a difference between loving them... There is no love or hate in politics and in international relations.

Interviewer:  I agree.

Majed Farag:  There are only interests. It is in our interest to cooperate with people of culture, science, thought, and technology - all those things that can benefit us.


Majed Farag:  As an Egyptian, I care about one thing and one thing only: my country's interests. I care about our national security. For over 70 years, the Palestinian cause has brought upon Egypt and the Egyptians nothing but harm, destruction, and expense. We have been preoccupied all our lives with the Palestinian cause...

Interviewer:  Peace in the Middle East...

Majed Farag:  No. The Palestinian cause is Palestinian. Egypt's problem has been resolved. The occupied land has been liberated. End of story, as far as I'm concerned. Let us now live and care about the interests of my country. Am I supposed to shackle myself to the Palestinian cause? Let the (Palestinians) resolve it. I have no problem with that. We have tried to help them many times. You remember the story of the (1977) Mena House meeting, to which they did not show up...

Interviewer:  Sadat told them to come and sign with him...

Majed Farag: They don't think it is in their interest. They don't want to resolve their own problem.


Majed Farag:  I still don't understand what the big deal is. I met many Egyptians there, and many Egyptians have visited Israel. I don't understand why my visit there made people so angry.

Interviewer:  Because you are Maged Farag.

Majed Farag:  C'mon...

Interviewer:  Because you published pictures and said...

Majed Farag:  Was I supposed to conceal my visit to Israel, and go there on a different passport, and all that? No. You know that I am not afraid. My principal is: If you are afraid, don't talk about it, and vice versa. I am convinced that this benefits my country. It is in the best interest of my country to have good relations... I won't say "friendly" relations, because friendliness is not the issue. It's about interests. I can benefit from that neighbor in many ways. You prefer to remain enemies with it? Fine. Let's be enemies. But until when? Until the Palestinian issue is resolved? It won't, and you know that better than me. The Palestinian issue will not be resolved because (the Palestinians) do not want it to be resolved. I just want to say one more thing. Some people said to me: "How can you go to an occupying country?" Occupying?! Do you have any doubt that Israel is, and will continue to be, a reality? Do you still hope and believe in the old idea of throwing them into the sea? Is that logical?!


Majed Farag:  I'm sure that you have heard that there is a sign in the Knesset, saying: "From the Nile to the Euphrates."

Interviewer:  It's from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Majed Farag:  No. "From the Nile to the Euphrates."

Interviewer:  Okay, I thought it was the other way around.

Majed Farag:  This is not true. There is no such thing.

Interviewer:  And it does not appear in The Protocols either?

Majed Farag:  What protocols?

Interviewer:  The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That old group.

Majed Farag:  Look, sir, let's stick to the Knesset.

Interviewer:  Is there a sign saying: "From the Nile to the Euphrates?"

Majed Farag:  Of course not.

Interviewer:  Is that "for sure"?

Majed Farag:  Sure, it's for sure. We all know that this is not true, but people keep saying this to heat up the hostility.


Majed Farag:  We have had bad relations with this neighbor for 60-70 years. It is high time that these relations improved. We should first make peace with ourselves and then with our neigbors. We should think with a scientific and open mind, with our eyes set on the future. France and Germany fought for hundreds of years.

Interviewer:  People think they fought one another only in the World Wars.

Majed Farag:  Of course not. They fought the Hundred Years' War [sic], and whatever... a million different wars. They spent centuries fighting wars. Today, France and Germany have become one country. Not only have they made peace, but they have also united.


Majed Farag:  Nations are migrating and occupying certain areas, and they live and coexist there. After a long period of occupying the land and settling in it, they become, as time goes by, the owners of the place, as you might say. How come we did not protest when Turkmen tribes occupied and settled in the Eastern Roman Empire, establishing the Ottoman Empire, which evolved into modern Turkey? Are these really the original owners of land? No, they're not. The Turks are not the original owners of the land. They came from Turkmenistan. Why did we not protest when Turkey occupied north Cyprus? Nobody uttered a word of protest. We do we remain silent over Spain's occupation of parts of Morocco? Cities in Morocco are considered part of Spain, not merely occupied land. England took Gibraltar and considers it part of England. There are many examples in history, but nobody wants to...

Interviewer: But none of these cases is around us. The (Palestinians) are right on our border.

Majed Farag:  Cyprus is also on your border.


Interviewer:  What is the meaning of having normal relations?

Majed Farag:  Normal relations require, first of all, cultural exchange. I must not fear the other. So long as I fear the other, nothing good can develop. We should not fear (Israel). We should visit there.


First there should be cultural exchange. There should be tourist exchange, and economic exchange. There are Israeli companies that specialize in modern drip irrigation. They have very advanced irrigation technology. We have a water problem. We have a shortage of water. Why can't we take advantage of their technology, of their thought, and of the results of their research? They used this technology to cultivate the desert, so why can't we use it here? Why can't I benefit from someone who used to be my enemy? I'm not looking to force him to become my friend. I want him as a partner in developing agriculture and industry in Egypt.


Many Egyptians have dealings with Israel, but in secret. Nobody has the courage to admit it. Many Israeli companies have representatives in Egypt. I have met many Egyptians who work in Israel. They are Muslims, and they marry Jewish Israeli women. They live and work there, and they encounter no problem whatsoever. What's the problem with that? But everybody is afraid to admit this. They think that this is some sort of a crime. It is not a crime. It's very normal. This is how it should be. This is the natural development of things.

Interviewer:  What do you want us to teach in Egyptian schools about the wars of '56, '67, and '73?

Majed Farag:  We should teach that there were wars in '48, '56, '67, and '73, and that these wars came to an end, that we signed a peace treaty, and we should set our eyes on the future. That's it.


Israel exists, whether we like it or not, and it will continue to exist, whether we like it or not. So let's just accept this.



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

Who is Really Behind BDS? We Can Cut Off BDS at the Spigot - David Bedein

by David Bedein

How can we fight the flow of finances to BDS?

Thousands of young people are now employed on campuses around the world, well financed and well organized, in an unprecedented effort that challenges the very legitimacy of Israel on every possible academic and economic front.

They call their movement: BDS – Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

Over the next few days, Mr. Sheldon Adelson and Mr. Haim Saban have called an emergency meeting of organizations concerned about BDS to answer two questions.
  • From where does the finance and organizational support for BDS emanate? 
  • How can BDS be stopped?
The answers may be easier to ascertain than one would expectMost recently, official representatives of the Palestinian Authority, the PA, engaged in an international effort that almost booted Israel out of FIFA, the most prestigious international sporting association, a step which could have denied any Israel sports team from competing in any sports competition, anywhere in the world.

The direct involvement of the PA in this massive BDS activity revealed what had been known for years, which is that the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah organized the BDS “movement” in 2005. The BDS web site speaks for itself., It is no more than a front for the PA.

BDS has indeed fostered an image that makes it seem as if it is a spontaneous grass roots movement.

Yet it does not take much research to discern that BDS is not listed anywhere as an independent organization, nor does BDS even hold or own a bank account, anywhere in the world. That is meant to foster the grass roots image, but the money involved has to come from somewhere.

BDS, in fact, acts as a subsidiary of the PA, in coordination with the PLO Negotiations Department, working with the official Arab League boycott of Israel that has fought Israel ever since the Jewish state came into being in 1948. (How many of you remember the days when American Jews shunned Pepsi Cola because it had succumbed to the Arab boycott pressure and refused to sell to Israel?) 

After losing the battle to eradicate the new state of Israel, the Arab League launched a full-scale economic war, which continues to this day, recruiting each Arab country to promote a boycott of all companies that do business in Israel.

The Arab League Boycott requires all imports into Arab ports to produce a "negative certificate of origin" - a document indicating that products were not manufactured in Israel, and their components were also not sourced from the Jewish state.

The Arab League via a Central Boycott Office (CBO), established in 1951, has implemented this ever since.  The CBO was tasked with creating a "blacklist" of companies and institutions with trade ties to Israel, and applies to all Arab countries, except for the two Arab nations that signed peace treaties with Israel- Egypt and Jordan, which signed off from the Arab boycott. The PLO was expected to also sign off from the Arab boycott after the 1993 Oslo Accords.

However, the PLO has never stopped promoting the Arab boycott of Israel, even though one of the explicit clauses of the “declaration of principles" in Oslo was that the PLO would no longer support the Arab League boycott of Israel.

Why? What has escaped public attention is that the PLO never ratified the "declaration of principles", the most fundamental document of the Israel-Palestinian Oslo Accords, nor did the PLO ever cancel its charter to destroy Israel, which was another major clause in that accord.

Only three weeks after the Oslo Accords were initialed on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, pending ratification by both sides, a prominent left wing journalist, Pinchas Inbari, reporting for the Mapam (Meretz) newspaper Al Hamishmar from the PLO headquarters in Tunis, reported that PLO leader Yassir Arafat announced that on the day of the scheduled PLO ratification, October 6, 1993, the PLO leader could not or would not convene the necessary quorum for ratification. As a result, the Oslo Accords have gone unratified to this day. 

I called the Arab League Boycott office at the Arab League office in Washington, DC. and asked if the PLO supports the current Arab League boycott.

The Arab League spokesman confirmed that the PLO indeed supports the Arab boycott campaign against Israeli products. Without any prodding, the Arab League spokesman went on to say that “We call that BDS now”-

“BDS” sounds better to the modern ear than “boycott” or “blacklist”.

The Arab league spokesman confirmed that all data of the Arab League boycott and Arab League blacklist has now been transferred to BDS, working under the control of each PLO legation in more than 100 countries, under the supervision of the PLO Negotiations Department, which coordinates activities with the central offices of the Palestinian Authority.  

That means that the PA now enjoys the best of all worlds.  The PA imports 30 billion shekels a year of Israeli products, while the PLO helps the Arab League campaign to boycott Israeli products, using the new terminology of BDS.

BDS activists, mostly from campuses abroad, now make timely visits to the PA in Ramallah, where cash is allocated for an untold number of BDS activists to profit in cash for their BDS activities

Since supervision of funds for Palestinian humanitarian services in the PA or UNRWA hardly exists, and since more than one nation provides cash for each of the Palestinian humanitarian services, that means that a cash surplus exists which PA can allocate for BDS activists to finance their operations.

It is easy to witness BDS hard at work in Jerusalem.

BDS activists from abroad meet at the American Colony Hotel on a regular basis with senior officials of the PA and return home to their campuses with bundles of cash in their pockets.

How can you fight the flow of finances to BDS?

Keep it simple. Ask each donor nation that funds Palestinian humanitarian services to make a reasonable requirement for transparency for the funds that each nation allocates to the PA or to UNRWA.

The BDS spigot may dry up, very quickly.

And then there is a diplomatic avenue. The PLO embassy in Washington, DC, which coordinates BDS activity in the US, was opened in May 1996 with the permission of the US government on the proviso that the PLO would cancel its charter to destroy Israel.

The PLO charter remains unchanged.

The non-cancellation of the PLO charter can now be invoked, to choke off the PLO office in DC, the fulcrum of support for the BDS.

Last but not least, the Israel Legal Forum has distributed copies of a strong anti-boycott law that was passed four years ago in Israel,  which mandates that anyone or any organization that engages in advancing a boycott of Israel or Israeli firms can be arrested and tried for a felony, and, upon conviction, can serve ten years in prison and face fines that will put their organization out of business.

The time may be right to encourage Israel to prosecute those Israeli citizens and visitors in Israel who actively promote the BDS Arab boycott of Israel. 

David Bedein


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

Forfeiting America's Military Leverage - Abraham Katsman

by Abraham Katsman

If there were ever thoughts that the U.S. under Obama would lay down the law with Iran and order, under overt military threat, the “voluntary” dismantling of the mullah’s nuclear program, they have passed quietly.

International diplomacy, it is said, is the art of letting the other party have your way.  While there are numerous diplomatic strategies to accomplish that, one of history’s more effective means of pursuing foreign policy goals was for a superior power to conspicuously display naval forces in the waters of the weaker power, posing a military threat until satisfactory terms with the weaker nation could be reached. Such “gunboat diplomacy” could be remarkably persuasive.

But if there is such a thing as the opposite of gunboat diplomacy, we are witnessing it in the nuclear negotiations with Iran.  There will be repercussions.

The United States and other leading nations taking part in the negotiations have military capabilities that dwarf those of Iran, at best a second-rate power. Yet, in spite of the huge military advantages -- not to mention the moral gulf between the U.S and Iran, or the huge stakes of allowing Iran to go nuclear -- negotiations have proceeded as if between equals.

U.S. military spending is greater than that of the next seven countries combined. Superpower America has a near-monopoly on those gunboats, as well as military aircraft and cruise missiles. But that power is only useful if there is a willingness to use it -- or, more precisely, if America’s enemies believe that that there is such a willingness.

If there were ever thoughts that the U.S. under Obama would lay down the law with Iran and order, under overt military threat, the “voluntary” dismantling of the mullah’s nuclear program, they have passed quietly. Sure, President Obama occasionally makes some perfunctory mention that the military option is still on the table, but no one takes his half-hearted warning seriously, least of all the Iranians. 

It doesn’t help matters when Obama says, as he did on Israeli TV this week, “A military solution will not fix [the Iranian nuclear problem]. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it.”

Obama has effectively forfeited America’s military leverage. He has taken the position that the only alternative to his Iranian appeasement approach is war, and that war is not an outcome acceptable to him under any circumstances. 

No Iranian misconduct disrupts Obama’s pacifism. Against American interests and those of America’s allies, Iran has expanded its reach into Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, ethnically cleansing Sunni communities in Iraq. It has seized a cargo ship under U.S. protection, and holds several Americans hostage (complete with an ongoing farcical “trial” against Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian for espionage). It has increased its nuclear stockpile and violated its existing international agreements, including regarding type and number of centrifuges it may operate, and announced that it will build additional reactors with the help of China and Russia.

In fact, America’s gunboats notwithstanding, it is Iran that has been dictating the terms of a prospective agreement. Iran’s intransigence in the nuclear negotiations has been rewarded: the U.S. has already backed off demands regarding Iranian nuclear enrichment, centrifuges, missile technology, and duration of the prospective agreement -- and gotten nothing in return.  

Not only is the United States administration going along with all this, but it has released some $11 billion in cash assets to the Islamic Republic. On top of that, it is offering a “signing bonus” of tens of billions of additional dollars to Iran for coming to a nuclear agreement, irrespective of Iranian behavior, support for terror or holding Americans prisoners.

In this context, with no credible American military threat on the table, we should not be surprised that Iran is getting everything it wants from the negotiations at no cost and no risk. As a bonus, it gets to show the world how unserious its American arch-enemy has become.

For the last century, the United States has asserted a global foreign policy, the core of which is being ready, willing, and able to impose its military might to protect its vital interests. Is there a more compelling current American interest than to keep nuclear weapons out of the reach of a rabidly anti-American, anti-Semitic, destabilizing, theocratic, apocalyptic regime, which also threatens the world’s major oil suppliers and is the world’s greatest supporter of terror? If Obama cannot even consider the military protection of that interest, he has rendered American foreign policy impotent, and its military capabilities irrelevant.

That abandonment of longstanding American projection of military power to protect global interests does not go unnoticed, by either friend or foe. The American military’s deterrent effect has been eroded; its security umbrella to its allies looks a lot less secure. The effect on alliances both current and future is corrosive.

From Riyadh to Taipei to Jerusalem, from Moscow to Beijing to Pyongyang, the world is paying close attention. As much as these nuclear negotiations are about Iran, they are even more about America.

Abe Katsman is an American attorney and political commentator living in Jerusalem. More of his work is available at


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

It's not about Soccer, Stupid. It's about Israel's Survival - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Mahmoud Abbas intends to destroy Israel. Plain and simple.

I am not a soccer fan, to say the least. My mentor, the late Dov Iron, who taught me Arabic and another million no-less-important things called this game the "Sole Culture". He was right. He left this world decades ago and did not live to see how an entire country,from its prime minister down to the guys loitering on street corners, from the top headlines to the gossip columns, everyone, and I mean everyone, was talking about the worst existential threat facing the Jewish People since the destruction of the Second Temple: Will Israel be ejected from FIFA or not? What will Rajoub do? 
One would have thought that this is a valid question in its own right and that everything else depends on its outcome. The entire country came down with Sole Culture Stress Disorder and was shaking with fear. Would that you could have witnessed it, Dov Iron.

Except that at this point I must come to Israel's defense, because Israelis are justified in the feeling that the FIFA issue is a fateful one, that is a manifestation of the Palestinian (a tribal group invented by certain Israelis) desire to wipe us off the face of the earth, not merely from the list of FIFA teams. In their eyes, Israel must not only leave the soccer court, but all of "Palestine" - that is, the land of Israel, named "Palestine" after the Jews' mortal enemies in biblical times, the Philistines, by the Roman Caesar Hadrian, and who have absolutely no connection to the Arabs who invaded Judea much later,  in the seventh century C.E.

What, however, is not justified is the triumphant feeling some of us have now that Rajoub (a convicted terrorist "lifer" who was freed in the 1985 Jibril 'Deal") has generously decided to withdraw the "Palestinian" demand to eject Israel from FIFA. This is a victory, this? The fact that he is still here is the proof of Israel's failure in its existential battle for survivial on its own land. The very same day he presented his request he should have been thrown into an Israeli prison or, alternately, over to the Lebanese side of the border. for unilaterally turning to international bodies without Israel's consent, in defiance of the stipulations set in the Oslo Accords..

We, however, are the guilty party, because his boss, Mahmoud Abbas, was not booted as far as we can throw him for presenting the UN, the International Court in the Hague and tens of other international organizations with requests to join them. He is the foremost enemy of Israel and the man who cleverly, moved the fight to the death against Israel to the international arena where Israel is weaker, easier to pressure and has less of an advantage compared to local battlefields. 

Under his supervision, the boycott movement flourished, with its twofold goal of laying sanctions on Israel and discouraging investment. Mahmoud Abbas is leading a process that intends to turn Israel into a pariah state that the whole world - including Jews - will reject. That is how he intends to defeat and destroy Israel. Yes, to destroy Israel. The truth must be told. To d-e-s-t-r-o-y the S-t-a-t-e of I-s-r-a-e-l. That is what he wants and that is what he is doing. Slowly, but surely.

Mahmoud Abbas cannot apply for a patent for the idea of boycotting us at every turn. That idea was raised beforehand, in the irresponsible words of Helmut Ostrerman (aka "Uri Avineri") and his Israeli leftist friends including Alon LIel, Yossi Beilin, Shimon Peres (the father of the "New Middle East" delusion, who once - in a dark  moment - was chosen to be Israel's president), and other fools who constantly "warn" the Jewish people that their international standing will deteriorate if they do not establish another terror state on the hills of Judea and Samaria for murderers like Jibril Rajoub and his Abbas-type supporters.

It is time to wake up. The battle is not on our place in FIFA, it is on our place right here. The problem is not a group of "settlements" in Judea and Samaria, but the Jewish "settlement" of Tel Aviv. The enemy is those strangers we brought here in 1993 to rule over the clans of Hevron, Shechem (Nablus) and Kalkilya. They seek legitimacy for their rotten and corrupt government by waging war against us, and they will stop at nothing in order to create an image of themselves as fierce and successful fighters. Our leftists are their teachers and guides. For shame.

We have to get real, turn over the tables. Oust every hired soldier from Tunisia and and transfer the control of the Arab cities of Judea and Samaria to the local families, creating municipal emirates. Israel must remain in the rural areas forever so as to assure that another Hamastan does not arise with contiguity of  terrorism from the hills overlooking Dimona and Be'er Sheva in the south to the threatening Hermon range overlooking Afula and Beit Shean in the north - and passing the coastal plan and Jerusalem,

Let's tell the truth: the Palestine Liberation Organizaion established in June 2, 1964, three years before the "occupation", was meant to free the "Palestine" that existed then, meaning Tel Aviv, Haifa, Nahariya and Be'er Sheva and not Hevron, Shechem and Ramallah that were under Jordanian "occupation" at the time. The organization has not changed its charter as of today, nor has it changed its goal and its suggested Final Solution for the Jewish People all over the world. This was the credo of its founder, he who established the great Palestinian Nation Lie, none other than Haj Amin El-Husseini, who took an active part in the extermination of half a million Hungarian Jews in 1944.

Mahmoud Abbas, Jibril Rajoub and their fellow-murderers share Husseini's dreams and are trying to achieve his goals without being obvious about it, so as not to wake us up. We are asleep and they are leading us towards extermination, along international corridors, by way of the courtroom - and through  FIFA. According to the Palestine Liberation Organization, all these international bodies are gas molecules that will strangle Israel, causing its certain death as soon as they reach the required concentration. All they have to do is open the anesthesia pipeline of "security coordination" to keep us from seeing the fatal gas they are gathering all around us.

This is not about soccer. This is about our existence in Israel, from Tel Aviv to Ariel, from Haifa to Kiryat Arba, from Be'er Sheva to Maaleh Adumim. The Palestine - all of Palestine - Liberation Organization does not want us here and it is time to tell the truth: those Accords we signed with them in 1993 were a strategic error and a fatal step for the Jewish State that followed Arafat as though he was the pied piper of Hamelin and they were a bunch of naive children - fated to be left in a cave with no way out.

It is time to send the Palestine Liberation Organization to hell in a handbasket before it becomes another Hamas state, which is can do by holding elections as in January 2006, or through a violent takeover which is what happened in Gaza in 2007. Is anyone able to promise that this won't happen in Judea and Samaria? Since no one in the world can assure us that this most realistic scenario will not take place, we must take that vital step, and every passing day makes it harder to do that most necessary thing. If not now, when? When should we do it? Should we wait until Hamas takes over and establishes a terror state in Judea and Samaria? As they are busy doing in Gaza? 

Our thanks to Jibril Rajouib, the convicted terrorist who showed us the truth, as if we really needed to be told.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar


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

The dangers of boycotting Israel - Mudar Zahran

by Mudar Zahran

I have personally approached several known BDS movements asking them to boycott many Arab countries for the way they treat my people, and not one time did I find even an iota of interest. This proves that the BDS corporate culture revolves around demonizing Israel and not around caring for the Palestinians.

Despite being in the 21st century, haters have not changed their hearts, but instead have changed their methods and slogans. Hatred in general has become harder to pin down socially and legally, because many haters use proxy mission statements to target their victims. 

A good example is anti-Semitism. It seems the anti-Semites of today can easily claim "we love the Palestinians" instead of saying "we hate Jews." This method has been championed by the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel. 

BDS is dangerous for all of us and could severely harm the West, the Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular.

As a Jordanian-Palestinian, I have witnessed firsthand that most BDS movements do not care for the Palestinians. I can authoritatively confirm this; I have personally approached several known BDS movements asking them to boycott many Arab countries for the way they treat my people, and not one time did I find even an iota of interest. This proves that the BDS corporate culture revolves around demonizing Israel and not around caring for the Palestinians.

When weighing the facts on the ground, the call to boycott Israel is rather ridiculous. Israel is the largest employment provider for Palestinians. Almost every single friend or relative I know in the West Bank works for Israeli businesses, some even inside Israeli settlements. This by itself is evidence of how little the BDS cares for Palestinians, because if Israeli businesses shut down because of BDS, how would the Palestinians make a living?

Let's not forget, the only Middle Eastern countries that allow Palestinians to work unconditionally are Israel and Saudi Arabia. All other countries impose extreme conditions on the employment of Palestinians. In Lebanon, Palestinians are banned from 72 professions, including being doctors. In Syria, Palestinians are being starved with no jobs or incomes in the Yarmouk camp by both the Assad regime and the Islamist rebels. In Jordan, where Jordanians of Palestinian heritage make up the majority of the population, we are banned from most government jobs. Still, you never hear the BDS movement even mentioning any of those countries.

BDS proponents counter this argument by claiming the movement is not only about livelihoods, but also "dignity" and above all "political rights." Well, let's examine how much of those things Palestinians get outside of Israel: Israeli Arabs (some of whom identify themselves as Palestinian) hold 16 out of 120 Knesset seats, despite making up less than 20 percent of Israel's population. On the other hand, millions of Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon do not have a single representative in any legislative body, despite having lived there for five decades. In Jordan, Jordanians of Palestinian origin hold fewer than 10% of the parliamentary seats despite making up more than 80% of the population (as indicated by a U.S. Embassy Amman cable). Nonetheless, BDS only cares to target Israel and not any of those Arab countries.

The unfairness and obvious bias that characterize the BDS movement are not only bad for Israel, but are in fact detrimental to us all. Driving Israeli businesses out of areas with a high Palestinian population results in young men being unemployed, and we all know a hungry man is an angry man. Those men could easily be radicalized even more than they already are, which is very dangerous today, as Islamists try to engulf the entire Middle East in flames. 

More radicalization of Palestinians means more trouble for Israel, and more trouble for Israel means harm to the only stable and capable power in the Levant that could confront the expanding Islamic State group. Islamic State makes no secret of its intention to target the West and has said openly that it will go after Washington and the White House after getting Jerusalem.

The harm for Israel, and in fact for the rest of us, is not only economic. The demonic image that the BDS movement is trying to establish for Israel plays into the hands of Islamists, as if demonizing Israel gives them more air to breathe.

The Islamists in our region are not stupid; they use the same message that the BDS movement uses: "rights for the Palestinians," "justice for our Palestinian brothers," and "justice for Palestine." Basically, thanks to BDS, the Islamists now have ready-made slogans with which to manipulate the average Westerner and Arab. All in the name of "protecting" the Palestinians. Why wouldn't the BDS movement protect us in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq or even Jordan?

As a Jordanian-Palestinian, and a son of refugee parents, I surely do not agree with Israel on a catalogue of issues, but I am wise enough to know that it is either Israel or Islamic State/Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah in our region. If the latter groups win, or become stronger, they will quickly find their way to Washington, London, Paris, Brussels, Amman, and Cairo.

It is fair to conclude that the BDS movement's recklessness is endangering all of us and could result in long-term trouble that our children will have to endure.

Westerners, Arabs in general, Palestinians, and everyone else must realize that Israel is one of the main cornerstones of the Middle East's security. Whether we like Israel or not, whether we choose to love it or hate it, we cannot afford to compromise Israel's interests, not today and not any time in the future. This may not be what we Arabs wish for, but it is a fact.

Meanwhile, anyone with common sense must not subscribe to the hasty recklessness, hatred and silliness of the BDS movement, as this will come with a very hefty price tag for all of us.

Mudar Zahran is a Jordanian-Palestinian who resides in the U.K.


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

What I would have asked Obama - Ruthie Blum

by Ruthie Blum

Mr. President, everyone is aware of the pressure you have been applying on Israel to bring about peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians. Can you give a single example of pressure on the PA?

On Tuesday night, Israel's Channel 2 network aired an interview with U.S. President Barack Obama, conducted by respected Israeli journalist Ilana Dayan. This was yet another tine of Obama's multi-pronged charm offensive, to make sure the Jews who supported and funded him do not abandon him and the Democratic Party as the 2016 presidential election draws near.

Coming on the heels of a sit-down with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic and an address to the Adas Israel congregation in Washington, it was not the least bit original. On the contrary, it was basically a repeat of everything Obama has been saying to assure Jewish donors that he has Israel's best interests at heart.

This is among many reasons that Dayan need not be patting herself on the back for scoring the coveted one-on-one at the White House. Indeed, she was merely serving as a pawn in Obama's transparent maneuver to capitulate to Iran, and to keep Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's warnings about Iran from being taken seriously.

Still, a tough investigative journalist like Dayan could have made better use of the microphone. But for this, she would have had to avoid slipping into idolatry mode and keep herself from fawning like a high-school girl in the presence of a movie star whose poster hangs over her bed.

Since I don't have that particular problem in relation to America's "leader-from-behind," I prepared an alternative list of questions I would have liked to hear Obama answer. 

1. Mr. President, your tense relations with Prime Minister Netanyahu are no secret. Can you give a single example of his having disobeyed your demands and commands? Did he not agree to negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, freeze settlement construction, release terrorists, and apologize to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for the 2010 events surrounding the "Free Gaza" flotilla?

2. Mr. President, in your recent speech at the Adas Israel synagogue, you quipped that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas wasn't the "easiest person" to negotiate with. This elicited sympathetic laughter from the audience. Can you give a single example of his having accommodated Secretary of State John Kerry's shuttle diplomacy efforts? 

3. Mr. President, you have said that it is imperative that Israel "live up to the core values on which it was founded." Can you give a single example of its not having done so?

4. Mr. President, you have expressed concern that in the absence of a "two-state solution," Israeli democracy would be in jeopardy. Prime Minister Netanyahu clearly agrees with you on this, as is indicated by his public endorsement in 2009 in a speech at Bar-Ilan University. Prior to his election in March, he acknowledged that this would not happen during his tenure, given the realities on the ground. After the elections, due to pressure from you and others, he said that he would resume negotiating with the PA, albeit with caveats. What about this position is problematic? Has the PA done anything to cause you to disagree with Netanyahu's assessments? 

5. Mr. President, everyone is aware of the pressure you have been applying on Israel to bring about peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians. Can you give a single example of pressure on the PA? For example, have you addressed any mosques in America and appealed to congregants about the commemoration in the PA of Nakba Day, mourning the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948? Have you insisted that Palestinian television cease teaching young children to take up arms against Jews?

6. Mr. President, you have said that "all options are on the table" where a nuclearizing Iran is concerned. Yet now you are claiming that there is no military solution. Meanwhile, Iran denies the clauses of the framework agreement, signed in Lausanne in April, which is to be finalized at the end of this month. Furthermore, its stockpile of nuclear fuel has increased by 20% over the last 18 months; the Iranian-allied Houthi rebels have taken at least four Americans prisoner; women's rights activist Atena Farghadani was just sentenced to 14 years in prison for posting a cartoon on Facebook, mocking Iranian politicians who supported an anti-contraception bill; a trial has begun against Washington Post Tehran bureau chief Jason Rezaian for espionage and "disseminating propaganda against the Islamic republic." Rezaian, an American citizen, has been held in Iran's torturous Evin Prison, mostly in solitary confinement, and subjected to fierce interrogations, while being denied medical treatment for his deteriorating health. Are you still planning on going ahead with the deal?

7. Mr. President, you always show great concern for "the children" of the world. For instance, you say that children in Ramallah should have the same opportunities for a bright future as children in Israel. Do you feel the same way about children in Iran? If so, why did you refrain from helping the Green Movement when it attempted to overthrow the mullah-led regime in 2009? Why did you say it was not your place to intervene on their behalf?

8. Finally, Mr. President, you have categorized Netanyahu and his friends in the U.S. Republican Party as forging foreign policy based on fear, rather than hope. Can you give a single example of a hope-based policy that has panned out since you took office?

Ruthie Blum is the web editor of Voice of Israel talk radio (


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

The panic that dare not speak its name: Hillary looks like a loser to Dems - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

The realization is dawning on many in the [Democrat] party that they have an unappealing, gaffe-prone, self-entitled, scandal-ridden presumptive nominee on their hands.

No Democrats are willing to go on the record with their doubts about Hillary Clinton’s electability – not even the gaggle of hopeless, sad-sack nominal opponents for the nomination: Lincoln “metric system” Chafee, Bernie “socialism now!” Sanders, and Martin “the guy who taxed rain” O’Malley.  But a shocking potential rival is waiting in the wings.

The realization is dawning on many in the jackass party that they have an unappealing, gaffe-prone, self-entitled, scandal-ridden presumptive nominee on their hands.  I called out the growing  subterranean panic three weeks ago.  Now with CNN polling revealing movement away from Hillary, the conservative press (here, here, and here, for instance) is joining me in highlighting the panic that the Democrats still fear open mention of.

The problem for the Dems is that their bench is ridiculously thin.  Leave aside the joke candidates already in the field, and all they’ve got is Elizabeth Warren, who, for all her socialist rhetoric (and personal profiteering from real estate flipping) and her affirmative action gamesmanship as a phony Native American, is a good talker.  But even in deep blue Massachusetts she was unable to deliver a convincing victory in her Senate run.  And perhaps knowing about more hypocrisy in her background, she is not anxious at all to throw herself into a run for the White House, with all the scrutiny that would entail.

So is there a knight in shining armor willing to ride in and save the Dems?  Michael Goodwin of the New York Post (hat tip: Powerline) has a fascinating report of what may be going on hidden from the public (for now):
…now comes word of a bid to entice another big-name challenger, and this one is far more intriguing.
It aims to get former Mayor Michael Bloomberg into the race.
New York Dems friendly to Bloomberg have approached him to gauge his interest. Their argument is that Clinton’s vulnerability with general-election voters, especially independents, could result in a Republican president. They also believed Bloomberg could be interested because, as one of them told me,“Mike can’t stand Hillary.”
One visitor to the former mayor came away cautiously optimistic after a 30-minute meeting, noting that Bloomberg didn’t throw him out of the office or start fiddling with his smartphone.
“That means he wasn’t bored and was listening,” said another man who talked to the three-term mayor. They were also encouraged that Bloomberg said something to the effect that it would be “no problem” for him to drop his unaffiliated registration and become a Democrat again.
Bloomberg has an enormous ego and a hunger to tell other people how to live their lives.  He also the kind of wealth (estimated at $36 billion) that makes self-financing a presidential campaign no problem at all.  Goodwin makes the case:
His strengths would be considerable, substantively and politically. His astonishing business success and record as a bold, can-do mayor in America’s largest city could appeal to voters of all persuasions.
He is socially liberal, being pro-choice, an early advocate for gay marriage and a relentless supporter of more gun control. He’s also a security hawk who supported the Iraq invasion, and was religious about keeping New York safe from crime and terrorism. Indeed, crime rates fell to historic lows under him, a record that burdens his hapless successor.
Bloomberg also believes in pay-as-you-go government, once arguing to me that he is a true conservative because he will raise taxes to provide services the public wants. He talks with conviction about big ideas like public health and infrastructure.
His most glaring weakness is that he lacks foreign-policy experience at a time when the world is on fire. However, Bloomberg is far from parochial, as both his business and philanthropy span the globe.
He’s a wooden campaigner, but there’s an easy answer for that: The incumbent is charismatic, and look at the mess he made! Blanketing the country with TV ads can cover a lot of sins.
Stand by.  This could get extremely interesting.  Hillary would not react well to a challenge from a former Republican, no matter how nominal.  And if Dick Morris is to be believed, she does not harbor kind feelings toward Jews, especially those whose wealth dwarfs hers and who did not stick it out in an unhappy marriage.  Hillary plays dirty, and you can expect American Bridge to unearth a lot of secrets from Bloomberg’s private and business life if he moves ahead on this intriguing notion.

Yippee!  There’s nothing quite like a steel cage death match involving Hillary with someone who’s smarter and richer than she is.

Thomas Lifson


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

Obama Officials Met w/Group Accusing Israel of War Crimes - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

After all that flattery, why would Jews think that Obama is anti-Israel?


These few weeks we’ve been rolling in piles of media press releases telling us how much Obama loves Jews. David Axelrod informs us that he is a Jew. Jeffrey Goldberg berates Jews for being ungrateful to Obama.

After all that flattery, why would Jews think that Obama is anti-Israel? It might be little things like this.
Senior White House officials met this week with members of the left-wing NGO Breaking the Silence. The meeting, the first of its kind, dealt with testimonies that the organization had collected on alleged human-rights violations by the Israel Defense Forces during last summer’s war in Gaza.
Matt Duss, president of the Washington-based Foundation for Middle East Peace, organized the meeting between Breaking the Silence representatives and members of the White House National Security Council.
Duss’ work was described as filled with Jew-Hatred by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The correct spelling of the Foundation for Middle East Peace is Saudi Arabia.

Breaking the Silence is another bunch of foreign funded trolls pretending to be a grass roots Israeli civil rights group of Israeli soldiers testifying to war crimes. Their testimony is as authentic as Kerry’s Winter Soldier scam.

One of its funders is the Foundation for Middle East Peace. In other words, Duss is introducing a bunch of liars he funds to Obama’s security people.

And there are strict quotas for faking war crimes for cash.
NGO Monitor research also reveals that several of BtS’s foreign donors conditioned their grants to the group on its ability to gather a minimum number of “testimonies” that are hostile to the IDF.
No really, there are quotas for fake war crimes.

And the money for this ‘grass roots’ organization comes from such Israelis as the British Embassy.
British Embassy: In this case as well, the donation is aimed at documenting and interviewing soldiers talking about the territories. The British embassy donated 271,891 NIS to the company in 2009.
Jew-Hatred doesn’t come cheap. You’ve got to pay for it.
According to Duss, the fact that both White House staff and the State Department held meetings with Breaking the Silence shows that the organization has an open door to the administration.
And still those damn Jews remain ungrateful to Obama. Why won’t they believe that he loves them?

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


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

Maajid Nawaz Just Indirectly Called 2 CAIR Officials "Insane" - IPT News

by IPT News

Nawaz, a former recruiter for the radical Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir who now combats the Islamist narrative, said that anyone who "entertains the idea" that Israel is as bad as ISIS "is frankly insane."

The National Union of Students, a confederation of 600 student unions representing more than 95 percent of all higher education unions in the United Kingdom, passed a motion Tuesday to align with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign as part of a worldwide effort to boycott Israel.

The same group rejected a motion in October condemning ISIS out of concerns it would "become a justification for war and blatant islamophobia." The failed motion called for support to "Iraqis trying to bridge the Sunni-Shia divide to fight for equality and democracy, including defence of the rights of the Christian and Yazidi-Kurd minorities." It also specifically condemned the Islamic State and expressed support for the Kurdish Peshmerga fighting it.

Seeing that fail, but a boycott of Israel pass, prompted Maajid Nawaz, a Liberal Democrat candidate in the 2015 parliamentary elections and prominent anti-extremism activist, to tweet his disapproval, saying it represents "Everything wrong with the Modern Left." In a subsequent comment, Nawaz, a former recruiter for the radical Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir who now combats the Islamist narrative, said that anyone who "entertains the idea" that Israel is as bad as ISIS "is frankly insane." As we reported in February, several prominent American Islamists have tried to push that very comparison. Two of them, Hussam Ayloush and Zahra Billoo run California chapters for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Ayloush, who runs CAIR's Los Angeles office, told an audience at the Islamic Center of Orange County in January that Muslims receive too much attention when it comes to extremism, especially involving foreign fighters. "So let's talk about the Jewish American kids who join the Jewish State before we talk about Muslim Americans who join the Islamic State. Neither one represents Judaism or Islam," he said.

Billoo, who runs the CAIR San Francisco office, made similar arguments in Twitter posts in September and again in February.

"Is one genocidal group different than the other?" her Feb. 16 post read.

It's remarkable that she sees that as a legitimate question. Or, as Nawaz sees it, "frankly insane."

IPT News


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