Saturday, September 12, 2015

Jordan: We Do Not Want Palestinians - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

  • "Improve the living conditions of the Palestinian refugees. Allow them to settle down. Give them citizenship so that they can live as human beings." — Dr. Ahmad Abu Matar, an Oslo-based Palestinian academic, blasting Arab the world for its continued mistreatment of Palestinians.
  • The Arabs do not care about the Palestinians and want them to remain Israel's problem. Countries such as Lebanon and Syria would rather see Palestinians living as "animals in the jungle" than grant them basic rights such as employment, education and citizenship.
  • It is no surprise that refugees fleeing Syria have no ambitions to settle in any Arab country. They know that their fate in the Arab world will be no better than that of Palestinians living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries.

A recent decision by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) to cut back its services has left Jordan and other Arab countries extremely worried about the possibility that they may be forced to grant citizenship rights to millions of Palestinians.

During the last few weeks, many Jordanians have expressed deep concern that the UNRWA measures may be part of a "conspiracy" to force the kingdom to resettle Palestinian refugees.

According to UNRWA figures, more than two million registered Palestinian refugees live in Jordan. Most of the refugees, but not all, have full (Jordanian) citizenship, the figures show. The refugees live in 10 UNRWA-recognized camps in Jordan.

The "Cyber City" refugee camp in Jordan, where a number of Palestinians are being housed. (Image source: ICRC)

Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to Palestinians. Still, many Jordanians see their presence in the kingdom as temporary.

Although there is no official census data for how many inhabitants are Palestinian, they are estimated to constitute half of Jordan's population, which is estimated at seven million. Some claim that the Palestinians actually make up two-thirds of the kingdom's population.

Over the past few decades, the Jordanians' biggest nightmare has been the talk about resettling the Palestinians in the kingdom by turning them into permanent citizens. The talk about turning Jordan into a Palestinian state has also created panic and anger among Jordanians.

Jordan's "demographic problem" resurfaced last week when a senior Jordanian politician warned against plans to resettle Palestinian refugees in the kingdom.

Taher al-Masri, a former Jordanian prime minister who is closely associated with the ruling Hashemite monarchy, sounded the alarm in an interview with a Turkish news agency.
Commenting on UNRWA's severe financial crisis, which has resulted in cutting back services to Palestinian refugees living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, al-Masri said: "I believe this is part of a plan to turn the issue of the Palestinian refugees into an internal problem of Jordan. UNRWA is paving the way for liquidating the Palestinian cause."

Al-Masri, whose views often reflect those of the monarchy, expressed fear that the UNRWA cutbacks would prompt the world to consider the idea of turning the Palestinians in Jordan into permanent citizens, especially as most of them already carry Jordanian passports.

Al-Masri and other Jordanian officials maintain that Jordan is entitled to protect its "national identity" by refusing to absorb non-Jordanians.

Earlier this week, Jordanian Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour raised many eyebrows when he announced that there were more than two million Palestinians living in Jordan who are not permanent citizens. Ensour was apparently referring to those Palestinians who carry temporary Jordanian passports.

Jordanian and Palestinian political analysts described Ensour's comments about the Palestinians in Jordan as "fuzzy" and "controversial." They noted that Ensour mentioned the Palestinians together with Iraqi and Syrian refugees who have found shelter in the kingdom in recent years, and that therefore the Jordanians consider the Palestinians' presence in their country only temporary.

"The remarks of the prime minister are ambiguous, controversial and very worrying," commented Bassam al-Badareen, a widely respected journalist in Amman. "He referred to the Palestinians as being part of the foreigners and Iraqi refugees in Jordan."

Ensour's remarks, like those of al-Masri, are further proof that Jordan and the rest of the Arab world are not interested in helping solve the problem of the Palestinian refugees. Jordan, Lebanon and Syria -- the three Arab countries where most of the refugees are living -- are strongly opposed to any solution that would see Palestinians resettled within their borders.

That is why these countries and most of the Arab world continue to discriminate against the Palestinians and subject them to Apartheid laws and regulations. Although Jordan has granted citizenship to many Palestinians, it nevertheless continues to treat them as second-class citizens.

In the past few years, the Jordanian authorities have been revoking the citizenship of Palestinians in a move that has been denounced as "unjust" and "unconstitutional."

The Arab countries have consistently justified their discriminatory policies against the Palestinians by arguing that this is the only way to ensure that the refugees will one day return to their former homes inside Israel. According to this logic, the Arab countries do not want to give the Palestinians citizenship or even basic rights, to avoid a situation where Israel and the international community would use this as an excuse to deny them the "right of return."

But some Palestinians reject this argument and accuse the Arab countries of turning their backs on their Palestinian brothers.

Dr. Ahmad Abu Matar, a Palestinian academic based in Oslo, blasted the Arab world for its continued mistreatment of Palestinians.

"All the Arab countries are opposed to resettlement and naturalization of Palestinians not because they care about the Palestinian cause, but due to internal and regional considerations," Abu Matar wrote. "We need to have the courage to say that improving the living conditions of Palestinian refugees in the Arab countries, including granting them citizenship, does not scrap the right of return."

Noting that Palestinians have long been deprived of their civil rights in the Arab world, particularly in Lebanon, where they are banned from working in many professions and live in camps that do not even suit "animals in the jungle," Abu Matar pointed out that the U.S .and Europe have opened their borders to Palestinians and even given them citizenship.

Addressing the Arab countries, the academic wrote: "Improve the living conditions of the Palestinian refugees. Allow them to settle down. Give them citizenship so that they can live as human beings."

But Abu Matar's appeal is likely to fall on deaf ears in the Arab world. The Arabs do not care about the Palestinians and want them to remain Israel's problem. Countries such as Lebanon and Syria would rather see Palestinians living as "animals in the jungle" than grant them basic rights such as employment, education and citizenship.

It is no surprise that refugees fleeing Syria have no ambitions to settle in any Arab country. They know that their fate in the Arab world will be no better than that of the Palestinians living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries.
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh


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

The Real Truth about Mr. Obama’s “Iran Deal” - Rubin Margules

by Rubin Margules

A definitive article that explains the entire Iran Deal and proves, as Denis Prager said, that "the more one knows about the Iran Deal, the more obvious it becomes that it is not a deal so much as it is a fraud".

Yedidya Atlas co-authored this article.

There is strident public disagreement between those who support President Obama’s “Iran Deal” as a “good agreement” or at least the “best deal one can achieve given the alternative” (i.e.: “No deal”), and those who perceive it as a “Bad Deal” to the extent that “No deal is better than a Bad Deal.” To better understand which side is more accurate in its analysis of the situation, let us remove emotions and party affiliations/loyalties from the discussion and examine the bare facts:

What does Iran get from the agreement?

The agreement allows Iran to ultimately possess a nuclear weapons arsenal and become a regional hegemonic power without changing its rogue policies of “exporting the revolution” (read: massive state support of international terrorism, destabilizing regimes, etc.) or development of advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles that are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead not only to all of Europe but even to American shores – all this besides holding US and other Western hostages with impunity.

The agreement, as noted by a recent report by the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs, legally and safely provides Iran with “the capability to shorten the time required to produce such an arsenal within the next 10-15 years (including the production of fissile material, weaponization, acquiring delivery systems, and improved military capabilities to protect the military nuclear program), so that it would be practically impossible to stop it.”

And this assumes Iran will abide by the agreement and wait. Given Iran’s past record of concealing its nuclear activities, its blatant declarations of hostility towards the US and Israel even before a Congressional vote, and its regime’s openly fanatical Islamic (Shiite) aspirations, the situation is far worse.

Even President Obama, speaking before the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and leaders of the Jewish Federations who congregated recently at the White House, openly declared “…I keep on emphasizing we don't trust Iran.  Iran is antagonistic to the United States.  It is anti-Semitic.  It has denied the Holocaust.  It has called for the destruction of Israel.  It is an unsavory regime.” 

There are two secret side deals to the agreement between Iran and the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that the Obama administration and its own negotiators are not privy to...

Therefore Mr. Obama declared: “We create[d] a verification and inspection mechanism across the entire nuclear production chain within Iran that is unprecedented -- more rigorous than anything that has ever been negotiated in the history of nuclear nonproliferation.”

Except in reality neither Americans nor Canadian inspectors are allowed into Iran; any area of Iran that the Iranian regime designates “military” cannot be inspected (e.g.: the Iranian veto on any foreign inspections at Parchin military base, where Iran has been developing nuclear weapons); Iran can object to any inspection and delay it at least 24 days, and, according to the Wall Street Journal, up to 3 months.

And last but not least, there are two secret side deals to the agreement between Iran and the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that the Obama administration and its own negotiators are not privy to, which Secretary of State Kerry admitted as much to Congress during the recent hearings.

So Mr. Obama cannot even explain what he means when he declares: “a verification and inspection mechanism…….that is unprecedented -- more rigorous than anything that has ever been negotiated in the history of nuclear nonproliferation” because even he has no idea what the verification deal is. So the so-called “anytime, anywhere” inspections he repeatedly promised during negotiations do not exist.

Another one of Mr. Obama’s whoppers is his claim that ““One of those commitments was that Iran would not get a nuclear weapon…. This deal blocks every way -- every pathway that Iran might take in order to obtain a nuclear weapon.” This isn’t true even if Iran can be trusted to keep its word, since immediately following the life of the agreement (10-15 years at best), Iran can complete its nuclear bomb in a matter of months - including warheads for the Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles that President Obama and Secretary Kerry agreed that Iran can finish developing outside of the agreement.  

As part of the full-press aggressive selling of “the Deal” to a justifiably skeptical Congress, one of the great falsehoods is the so-called “snap-back sanctions.” This is to justify the wholesale release of more than $100 billion of sanctions that took a decade to put together – the very economic sanctions that forced the Iranians to the negotiating table. But the Iranians, who entered negotiations initiated by the Obama administration already during the time of Iranian President Ahmadinijad behind the backs of America’s allies in the Middle East understood the Americans have no red lines that cannot be crossed. Hence, the agreement excludes everything but nuclear weapons development, and that is wholly dependent on an untrustworthy Iran suddenly, and, for the first time, keeping its word.

And if it doesn’t, Mr. Obama lamely claims he can get his European partners to the agreement – including Russia - to agree to reinstate the sanctions even though they are all lining up to do business with the Iranian market.

As Law Professor and author Alan Dershowitz, a man who identifies himself as a liberal Democrat who voted for Mr. Obama twice, pointed out in a recent column: “we (America) took off the table the option of rejecting the deal by publicly acknowledging that if we do so, we will be worse off than if we accept even a questionable deal. Yes, the president said he would not accept a “bad” deal, but by repeatedly watering down the definition of a bad deal, and by repeatedly stating that the alternative to a deal would be disastrous, he led the Iranians to conclude we needed the deal more than they did.”

“But the real losers were those countries — our allies — who were not even allowed to participate in the negotiations,” Prof. Dershowitz notes. “Virtually every Middle Eastern leader, with the exception of Syria’s Assad, opposes this deal. Nor do they feel bound by it, since they did not have a vote. The deal was imposed on them, in much the same way the Chamberlain-Hitler deal was imposed on Czechoslovakia in 1938. The difference is that Czechoslovakia did not have the means to defend itself, whereas Israel and some of its Sunni neighbors do have the capacity to try to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal — which the mullahs would use to increase their hegemony over the area and to threaten Israel’s security through its surrogates, Hezbollah and Hamas.”

Hence, as radio host and commentator Dennis Prager recently concluded: “the more one knows about the Iran Deal, the more obvious it becomes that it is not a deal so much as it is a fraud. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of a fraud is “something that is meant to look like the real thing in order to trick people.” Sadly, the price for this fraudulent deal – which didn’t have to end this way – will be paid by America’s closest allies and the even the American people themselves.

Rubin Margulis serves as President of the Brooklyn Region of the Zionist Organization of America. Born in Germany, he later immigrated to the US where he earned a Masters degree at the Harvard School of Business and now works in real estate. He visits Israel some four times a year, including his annual Purim holiday distribution of Mishloach Manot to over 5,000 IDF soldiers.

Yedidya Atlas is a veteran journalist specializing in geo-political and geo-strategic affairs in the Middle East.who was a writer for Arutz Sheva. His articles have also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Insight Magazine, Nativ, The Jerusalem Post and Makor Rishon, reprinted by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the US Congressional Record.


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

A rigged vote, no real debate - Alan M. Dershowitz

by Alan M. Dershowitz

According to a recent Pew poll approximately one in five Americans think the deal is a good one. The President had an obligation to use his bully pulpit to try to obtain majority support among voters. Not only did he fail to do that, he also failed to persuade a majority of senator and house members. So this minority deal will go into operation over the objection of majority of our legislators and voters.

When I was growing up, "filibuster" was a dirty word. It was a tactic used by bigoted southern Senators to prevent the enactment of any civil rights legislation. I recall Senator Strom Thurmond babbling on for 24 hours in an effort to keep the south racially segregated. We regarded the filibuster as the enemy of democracy and the weapon of choice against civil rights.

Yet, President Obama and his followers in the senate deployed this undemocratic weapon in order to stifle real debate about the nuclear deal with Iran and to prevent the up or down vote promised by the Corker bill. A President, who was more confident of the deal, would have welcomed the Lincoln-Douglas type debates that I and others had called for regarding the most important foreign policy decision of the 21st century. But instead of arguments on the merits and demerits of the deal, what we mostly got was ad hominems. Proponents of the deal trotted out famous names of those who supported the deal, without detailed arguments about why they took that position. No wonder so few Americans support the deal. According to a recent Pew poll approximately one in five Americans think the deal is a good one. The President had an obligation to use his bully pulpit to try to obtain majority support among voters. Not only did he fail to do that, he also failed to persuade a majority of senator and house members. So this minority deal will go into operation over the objection of majority of our legislators and voters.

One of the low points of this debate was a variation on the ad hominem fallacy. It was the argument by religious or ethnic identity. Supporters of the deal tried to get as many prominent Jews as they could to sign ads and petitions in favor of the deal. The implicit argument was, "See, even Jews support this deal, so it must be good for Israel," despite the reality that the vast majority of Israelis and almost all of its political leaders believe the deal is bad for Israel.

The absolute low point in the non-debate was a New York Times chart, identifying opponents of the deal by whether they were Jewish or Gentile. The implication was that Jews who opposed the deal must be more loyal to their Jewish constituents or to Israel than Americans who supported the deal. But the chart itself made little sense. It turns out that the vast majority of democratic Congressmen who voted against the deal were not Jewish, and several of them represented districts in which less than 1% of the voters were Jewish. It is true that two out of the four democratic senators who voted against the deal were identified as Jews, but one of the non-Jewish Senators represents West Virginia where Jewish voters constituted less than one tenth of one percent of the voting population. Moreover, opposition to this deal is considerably greater among evangelical Christians than among Jews.

Identifying by their religion members of congress who voted against a deal that the Times strongly supported is, as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA) aptly put it, more than a dog whistle; it is a bull horn. It plays squarely into anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews having dual loyalty. Will the Times next identify bankers, media moguls, journalists and professors by their religious identity? Would the Times have done that for other ethnic, religious or gender groups?

This has been a bad month for democracy, for serious debate and for the treatment of all Americans as equally capable of deciding important issue on their merits and demerits. Whether it also turns out to have been a bad month for peace and nuclear non-proliferation remains to be seen. But even those who support the deal should be ashamed of some of the undemocratic tactics and bigoted arguments employed to avoid a real debate and a majority vote.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Emeritus Professor at Harvard Law School and the author of his new book: "The Case Again the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes?" now available on Kindle and other ebook sites.
  • Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter

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

Last-ditch efforts to stop the Iran deal - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

-- some have not given up the fight and are pursuing strategies to snatch victory from the jaws of Obama.  Two paths are apparent, both involving the courts

It may well be that yesterday marked the beginning of the Iran deal, as Carol Brown laments.  But some have not given up the fight and are pursuing strategies to snatch victory from the jaws of Obama.  Two paths are apparent, both involving the courts.

Speaker Boehner has announced that he may sue.  Jake Sherman writes in Politico:
Speaker John Boehner said Thursday he might sue President Barack Obama again.
The Ohio Republican said Obama has not turned over the entirety of the Iran agreement for congressional review as mandated by law. Boehner said legal action is “an option that’s very possible.”
“If you read the provisions in [the congressional review law], it’s pretty clear that the president has not complied,” Boehner said Thursday during his weekly news conference. “Because it makes clear that any side agreements and any other type of an agreement — including those that do not directly involve us — must be turned over as part of it. I do not believe that he’s complied.”
The speaker said the agreement is "worse than anything I could’ve ever imagined."
Although the courts have generally been reluctant to get involved in disputes between the legislative and executive branches, a recent Obamacare decision gives some hope.  Northwestern University constitutional law professor Eugene Kantorovitch explains in the Washington Post:
In fact, there are at least two paths to invalidating any sanctions relief implemented by the president – a lawsuit by a House of Congress, or action involving state sanctions laws.
Yesterday a D.C. Federal district court issued a landmark ruling in House of Representatives v. Burwell, upholding the House of Representatives standing to challenge Executive action under the Affordable Care Act. The question of institutional legislative standing is a fairly novel one, and thus this is an important decision.
Whether it survives on appeal, the decision creates a major and previously unanticipated opening for a congressional lawsuit challenging the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The constitutional argument would focus on the non-transmission of documents required under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (the Corker-Cardin deal), which would seem to satisfy the standing test established by the district court.
Omri Ceren, in an email, summarizes the complex argument:
It begins in the usual place: the 60 day review process hasn't started because the Iran-IAEA side deals haven't been transmitted to Congress. But the injury isn't just that waiving sanctions is illegal, which is the way the argument usually proceeds. Instead the Kontorovich argument is that Congress has been denied its Article I prerogative to exercise its legislative authority: since binding action on the JCPOA can only occur between Day 1 and Day 60 of the Corker "period of review," and since that clock hasn't started so we're not in Day 1, Congress has been denied the ability to act on the JCPOA. (snip)
White House spokesperson Earnest was asked about possible Congressional litigation at today's White House press briefing. His answer: "we've been clear that the [transmitted] documentation included all the documentation that was in the possession of the United States government" [b].
That answer is unlikely to satisfy Congress and may not pass judicial scrutiny. The White House appears to have intentionally not called for the side deals, lest they have to transmit them. Olli Heinonen - a 27 year IAEA veteran who sat atop the agency's verification shop - has explained that the U.S. could very easily call for the side deals because the U.S. is a member of the IAEA Board: "According to the IAEA rules and practices such documents could be made available to the members of the IAEA Board... If a board member asks it and others resist the distribution ... this can be overcome by a vote... Simple majority is enough, and no vetoes exist in the IAEA system."
Kantorovitch therefore cautions:
Congress should insist on not voting on anything labelled a “resolution of disapproval.” Indeed, Congress cannot competently act on a resolution of disapproval, both because such a resolution lacks any legal force until the period of review commences, and because they have been denied the relevant information necessary to fulfill their constitutional role.
As to the second path, revolving around state sanctions:
Many states have their own Iran sanctions’ laws, and many are are moving to implement or strengthen such. Many of the state sanctions regimes provide that they terminate if federal sanctions are suspended. Such a state may well be sued by those subject to the state sanctions, arguing that the state sanctions are preempted by federal law, on the view that federal sanctions have been suspended or waived. The plaintiffs in such a case would certainly have standing. But as a defense to such a suit, the state could then argue that in fact the federal sanctions have not been waived or suspended, under the terms of Corker-Cardin.
Such an argument would be eminently justiciable, as standing generally applies to plaintiff’s claims, not to defenses. It is not unheard for the legality of something to be non-justiciable in a direct challenge, but reviewable in an enforcement action. To put if differently, state law can’t be preempted by an invalid federal action.
Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz recommends two more steps, in addition to noting the lack of complete documentation mentioned above:
Leader McConnell should schedule a vote on a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that, if the agreement had been introduced as a treaty, it would not be ratified. This will put senators on record and will make clear that there is insufficient support in the Senate for approving the agreement as a treaty.
Third, given President Obama’s regrettable history of lawlessness, it is reasonable to assume that he will simply ignore the law and declare that he is lifting sanctions under the agreement anyway. On that assumption, we should make clear to the CEOs of banks holding frozen Iranian funds that their misplaced reliance on the president’s lawlessness would not necessarily excuse them from the obligation to comply with existing federal sanctions laws. And if they release billions in funds to Khamenei, they risk billions in civil (and possibly even criminal) liability once President Obama leaves office. Having spent years advising major corporations in private practice, I can say that their general counsels will likely tell them their legal exposure is real, which could well result in the banks deciding not to release the funds to Iran, despite the president’s actions.
The real Rubicon to be crossed in the Iran deal is the release of financial assets to Iran.  Once they are gone, they cannot be gotten back, and based on statements from Iran as late as yesterday, it is certain they will be employed in part to rain down death and destruction on Israel, the United States, and all who do not adhere to the mullahs’ version of Islam.  One can imagine Obama’s fury if banks decline to release funds based on liability worries.

Hat tip: Karin McQuillan

Update. A friend writes:

Today, we mourn the loss of 2,977 irreplaceable people. We also mourn the loss of our irreplaceable nation.

During these long fourteen years, we descended into the pit of madness, from which we may never crawl out.

The American people voted twice for a man who is giving $150 billion and nuclear weapons to our worst enemies.

On 9/11, they attacked us armed only with box-cutters. Now what?

Thomas Lifson


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

Hillary Clinton’s 'Tough Foreign Policy' Scam - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

Only Hillary can make Hillary’s discredited policies work again.

The phrase “Only a Clinton” entered our lexicon in the nineties. Ever since then the unsinkable Clintons have continued spewing outrageous lies and ridiculous ploys that only a Clinton could get away with.

Hillary Clinton tried campaigning for the White House without actually taking positions on anything. Iran was a particularly touchy subject because the Democratic Party has two constituencies that are sharply divided on the issue. Jewish voters oppose the deal while left-wing voters back it.

Hillary Clinton couldn’t pander to both at the same time. Or could she? 

Hillary Clinton endorsed the deal while in true “Only a Clinton” style running against it. She endorsed the deal using militant rhetoric that threatened Iran with war. Her message is that she endorses a deal that gives Iran near zero breakout time to the bomb and lets it self-inspect and fund terrorists, but that she’ll be the toughest terror deal supporter you ever saw. No one will be tougher on that deal than her.

Only a Clinton.

This isn’t the first time that Hillary Clinton pulled that particular scam. Trying to get Americans to forget about her infamous “Reset Button” photo, she compared Putin to Hitler. (But if Putin was Hitler, that would have made her Neville Chamberlain or, considering her politics, Vyacheslav Molotov.) It was over the top and even the media took her to task for it.

Her Iran speech is equally over the top. It tries and fails to cloak her support for a deal that lets a terrorist regime get the bomb by sounding like she’s about to drop the bomb. Like Dukakis trying to channel Patton, it’s an awkward fit.

But “Tough Foreign Policy” Hillary is her brand. It’s how her associates have been positioning her. 

When Hillary Clinton mocks Putin, you’re supposed to believe that she would be tougher on him than Obama. In her Brookings session, she explicitly drove that point home, in her usual lawyerly style, by contending, "I am in the category of people who wanted us to do more in response to the annexation of Crimea and the continuing destabilization of Ukraine."

Why couldn’t Hillary Clinton actually stand up to Putin? The unspoken suggestion is that it was Obama’s fault. The only thing keeping Hillary from marching the Russians out of Ukraine was Obama.

But the “Reset Button” was Hillary Clinton’s idea. When asked about it, she had said, “I thought it was a brilliant stroke, which in retrospect appears even more so.”

If you can follow Hillary’s reasoning, her appeasement of the man she compared to Hitler was a “brilliant stroke” of genius, but the only thing keeping her from getting tough on “Hitler” was Barack Obama.

The only person who could possibly believe that is either a deluded idiot or a compulsive liar. 

Comparisons to Chamberlain and even Molotov appear unfair. A more accurate analogy might be to Petain who at his trial insisted that his collaboration with the Nazis had helped the Allies win the war.

Hillary’s Iran deal speech offers more of the same schizophrenic worldview in which she promises to get tough on her own appeasement. 

She began back-channel talks with Iran, even though she had opposed it while running for office. But her opposition was just another Clinton lie. It was Hillary who agreed to let Iran enrich its uranium, formerly one of those red lines that her administration would discard like confetti at a ticker tape parade. 

Now she is once again trying to distance herself from her own foreign policy by pretending that she would take a harder line on Iran as President Hillary Clinton than she did as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeased Moscow and Tehran, but President Hillary Clinton will really crack the whip by disavowing all her own policies during the campaign.

Just like she did the last time she ran for office.

Hillary Clinton is trying to have her uranium yellowcake and eat it too by pulling a bait and switch. The foreign policy basis for the deal is reapproachment and alliance with Iran. Hillary Clinton is selling the deal as a means of fighting Iran. Before Hillary’s speech, former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, a Clinton loyalist, defended the deal in the same terms as a means of putting pressure on Iran.

Panetta’s description of the deal had no relationship to reality. It was just prep work for Hillary’s brand. 

The deal is not about pressuring Iran or building a coalition against it. You don’t pressure an enemy regime by giving it billions of dollars and you don’t build a coalition against it by acting as its lawyer. 

When you remove sanctions from a terror state, that isn’t a way of stopping its terrorism.

But in “Only a Clinton” style, Hillary Clinton has decided to invent her own imaginary Iran Deal and campaign on it. It’s a better choice than trying to campaign on the real deal which only 1 in 5 Americans supports. It won’t fool Iran, but it might fool some of her dumber Jewish donors.

And that’s what it’s really all about.

Hillary Clinton wants to break from Obama in style rather than substance. Her occasional criticisms infuriate Obama, whose skin is even thinner than hers, but they are never more than stylistic. She doesn’t differ with specific actions. Instead she talks about attitudes and organizing principles.

The real message that she’s trying to send is that with her experience, she can make Obama’s terrible foreign policy work. But his terrible foreign policy is really her terrible foreign policy.

Instead of getting a better foreign policy, Hillary ‘butches’ up the bad foreign policy of her old boss. 

“Yeah, if I were the prime minister of Israel, you’re damn right I would expect to have control over security,” she barks to Jeffrey Goldberg. But then she rushes off to apologize to Obama at a ‘hugging summit’. That theatrical “damn right” comes from the same woman took Abbas’ side over Netanyahu and whose husband had taken Arafat’s side over Netanyahu. Their backing for the PLO destroyed Israel’s security and took the lives of many Israelis and Americans.

But it’s not hard to see where Hillary gets it.

Bill Clinton told a Jewish audience at a charity dinner that if Israel were invaded, “I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die.”  Then he claimed that there was no military solution to terrorism.

Only a Clinton.

Hillary’s Iran speech just borrows Bill’s “rifle” by vowing that she "will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon.” 

Iran has been trying to obtain a nuclear weapon for a long time now. That’s been the entire purpose of its nuclear program. Hillary Clinton’s hesitation on Iran’s nukes has lasted for decades.

It’s not just that Hillary Clinton is lying. We expect to be lied to be politicians, especially if their last name is Clinton. It’s that she’s trying to sell a third Obama term by dressing it up in combat boots.

Americans hate Obama’s foreign policy. They hate the Iran Deal. They hate that the world is melting down and that their government can’t seem to do anything about it. Instead of offering real change, Hillary Clinton is promising a tougher foreign policy that is the same old policy, but tougher.

Hillary Clinton will still let Putin walk all over her, but she’ll also compare him to Hitler and do mocking imitations of him. She’ll still pressure Israel to open checkpoints and make infinite concessions, but she’ll occasionally offer a “damn right” when addressing a Jewish audience. And she’ll hold on to the Iran Deal, but make more empty threats of military intervention… at least during her elections.

"We should anticipate that Iran will test the next president. That won't work if I am in the White House," she boasts.

But Iran has already tested Hillary and found her wanting. When she gave up on uranium enrichment, the race to pile up American concessions to the terrorists was on. Everything else was anticlimactic. 

Hillary Clinton has already been discredited. So she’s running against her own foreign policy. Only President Hillary Clinton can make Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s discredited policies work again.

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


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

The Jewish people will never be silent ever again - Dror Eydar

by Dror Eydar

As in the days of the bloody Oslo Accords, today too the Israeli media is rushing to get behind a dangerous agreement: the one with Iran • I wouldn't count on this deal, Obama's deal, being a success, and I certainly wouldn't trust the media's forecasts.

Alexander Louis Leloir, "Jacob Wrestling with the Angel," 1865

Dror Eydar


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

How Dr. Carson's Shrewdness Could Win Him the Nomination - Jamie A. Hope

by Jamie A. Hope

‘As shrewd as a snake and as innocent as a dove.’

A liberal friend of mine who has been an informed follower of the Republican Presidential primary recently asked, “Do you think Ben will be more aggressive and go after the Donald in the next debate on CNN?”  My response, “No. Not if he is as shrewd as he appears to be.”

That friend was referring of course to Dr. Benjamin Carson, who is stunning the Republican presidential polls with his strong performance thus far.  According to CNN, Dr. Carson is second only to real estate mogul Donald Trump in the national polls while his spending on advertising is proportionally lower.  However, if the matchup were just between Carson and Trump for the presidential nomination, Carson dominates Trump among Republicans 55% to 36%.

There are several reasons Dr. Carson is doing so well in the polls and is a top contender to be the nominee, none of which have to do with screaming the loudest or satiating the public with sharp tongued, yet sometimes humorous responses.

The reason Donald Trump is doing so well in the polls right now is because people are vicariously venting their anger and frustration through him.  Every time he releases an unapologetic politically incorrect tirade, people who don’t have a voice feel a release of pent up anger.  Trump is vehemently expressing what they’ve wanted to on many occasions, but haven’t had a public mouthpiece in their corner, until now.  Trump has willingly become the mouthpiece of a segment of our fed up population.  For people who like extreme candor, it admittedly has been a little entertaining.

However, anger is temporary state, and most people after venting, cool off and become more thoughtful in how they communicate and want real solutions to the issues they are angry about. Enter Carson.

During the Fox News presidential debate, many felt that Dr. Carson didn’t stand out and that he wasn’t aggressive enough.  But he stood out for this very reason.  While other contenders attempted to emulate Trump’s true passion and aggression, Dr. Carson stood by his Biblical principles.  The Bible in James 1:19 states, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.”  Unfortunately, America has become a society that constantly ups the ante on shock value and no holds barred speech.  They often times look for it and are discontent with a soft spoken, well thought out answer.

However, it appears the public is slowly waking up and realizing the emptiness of such vacuous and mendacious speech.  The voters now see what happens when they put charismatic leaders with no backbone or wisdom in office, on both sides of the aisle.  They have witnessed firsthand that humorous one liners and a witty quips on popular talk shows don’t solve the multitude of ills America now faces.

George Washington and Benjamin Franklin only had a grade school education. But they had vast wisdom and were able to assist in forming and running a government by using that wisdom and the intellect of others.  Fortunately, Dr. Carson appears to have the same intellect and wisdom and exhibits this with shrewd assessment and analysis of the issue.

Another reason he will likely keep his stride is simply because he is not a politician.  As much as the media has tried to make this a negative, it’s exactly the reason Dr. Carson and Mr. Trump have done so well in the polls.  In fact, looking at the polls of competency for our national politicians, one can hardly make a case against a world renown brain surgeon or a businessman that admittedly knows how to work the system for his own profit (at least he’s honest about it, unlike the pocket-lined politicians currently in office.)  According to a Rasmussen telephone poll from July, only 13% of those surveyed felt Congress was doing a good or excellent job, while the president’s ratings have been fluctuating under 50%.

Though they managed to declare their Independence from Great Britain, fight and win a war with a ragtag militia, and form a new government with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, the previously noted Founders of our country were not Ivy League accomplished, neither were they political gurus.  They were inventors, surveyor turned general, businessmen, writers, as well as academics and lawyers.

What would the media say about Founding Fathers, Washington, a war general, Franklin an inventor, failed businessman Samuel Adams, or mere physician Benjamin Rush if they chose to run for president now –“He can’t run for office, he’s just a businessman” or “He isn’t fit to be president, he’s just a physician.”  How many people in the press would question Samuel Adams about his failed business?

If Dr. Carson were to change the tone of his campaign to appear more aggressive like Trump, it would clearly send a message that he is bowing to political pressure to score points, and that is contrary to his position of why he is running.  He has differentiated himself by being a level headed, thought provoking man of wisdom.  Any attempt to change his campaign tone now would be damaging, and the media would pounce on him.  

The media has already attempted to accuse Carson of trading jabs with Trump for merely being honest when answering a question about Trump’s supposed faith. According to CBS News, Carson was asked if he thought Trump was sincere about his religion, to which Carson responded, “I haven’t heard it. I haven’t seen it.” He even went on to clarify, “Maybe I’m wrong…” to which Trump responded with his usual fiery tone and insulting remarks at Carson, calling him, “an okay surgeon, I guess.” Even though the media tried to start a verbal brawl between Carson and Trump, the two top contenders, all Carson did was answer a simple question without malice.

However, John Philip Sousa IV, Chairman of the 2016 Committee, a Super Pac committed to getting Dr. Ben Carson elected to the White House took exception with Trump’s malicious response. He said that “Trump calling Dr. Carson an okay doctor is paramount to saying that he had heard that Trump built a couple of apartments with the help  of a couple of buddies.

Carson was the youngest head of pediatric surgery at John Hopkins Hospital and was in fact the medical professional that developed the process for separating twins conjoined at the head. He was responsible for $100 million dollar budgets and a very large team.”

Dr. Carson is proverbially, ‘As shrewd as a snake and as innocent as a dove.’  He understands that God, not man appoints Kings, and believes as he quoted as his favorite Bible scripture, Proverbs 3:5-6, ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.’

So if you’re looking for someone to verbally shred you’re opponent, dazzle you with their smile or fool you with their charm, Dr. Carson is not your nominee.  But if you’re looking for a shrewd intellect with a long measure of wisdom, keep your eyes on the surgeon.

Jamie A. Hope


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

Analysis: A (moderately) hopeful sign for Israel from Cairo - Zvi Mazel

by Zvi Mazel

To Dore Gold, director- general of the Foreign Ministry, fell the honor on Wednesday of raising for the third time the flag above the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.

Yossi Hadas had been the first. It was on February 17, 1980, and the building, a modest villa in Dokki. After 30 years of wars and hostility, it was a truly historic moment. Peace had been made between the two neighbors, and with it hope for fruitful cooperation for the benefit of both peoples leading, perhaps, to peace between Israel and other Arab countries.

The late Eliahu Ben Elissar raised the flag on what had been intended to be the permanent building, a modern high-rise in Giza, on the west side of the Nile.

Today, it is the ambassador’s residence in Maadi, Cairo’s southern suburb, which has been elevated temporarily to the rank of embassy until a new “permanent” building is ready. A modest but much needed hopeful sign after an angry mob stormed the Giza building four years ago.

This very public ceremony, where the hymns of both countries were played, follows June’s appointment of a new Egyptian ambassador to Israel, Hazem Khairat. These two steps can be interpreted as signaling a positive shift in the relations between Egypt and Israel, perhaps as a result of increased security cooperation and a common interest in fighting Islamic terrorism in the Sinai Peninsula.

Since Abdel Fattah al-Sisi took the helm, there has been a significant lessening of tension between Cairo and Jerusalem. The new president has refrained from attacking Israel publicly and indeed his moderate language has been noted, though he reiterates his support for a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital.

The Egyptian media are still overwhelmingly hostile, but in more subdued tones, even though there are still outbursts of hatred, mainly from Islamic circles.

What is going to happen now? Will Sisi take the momentous decision to promote much needed economic cooperation for the benefit of both countries, fulfilling at long last the great expectations of the peace treaty? So far, the Egyptian president has been proceeding with slow and careful steps to minimize opposition from home and from Arab countries.

At the moment he is focused on the forthcoming parliamentary elections and has no wish to be embroiled in what is still a hot topic in his country. However, when – or if – his position is fully secure and Islamist terrorism under control, he is too pragmatic a man to reject mutually beneficial cooperation. This is perhaps the true meaning of Wednesday’s small, but significant, event.

Zvi Mazel, a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is a former ambassador to Romania, Egypt and Sweden.


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

Bangkok Bombers Revealed to be Chinese Muslim Terrorists - Ari Yashar

by Ari Yashar

Thai investigation shows mastermind and members of lethal bombing cell are Chinese Uyghurs, but authorities hushing up the angle.
Thai police investigate site of Bangkok bombing (file)
Thai police investigate site of Bangkok bombing (file)
Thai police have revealed that the horrific bombing attack on a Hindu shrine in Bangkok last month that murdered 20 people was masterminded by Chinese Muslims of the Uyghur minority.

The mastermind of the bombing has been named by Thai police as "Izan," and reportedly fled to Bangladesh the day before the bombing on a Chinese passport, reports the Washington Post on Thursday.

Likewise another man who admitted to being part of the group behind the bombing is currently being held by police and has been identified as Yusufu Mierili. He was nabbed on September 1 close to the border with Cambodia in possession of a Chinese passport, which listed him as hailing from the Uyghur homeland of Xinjiang in western China near Pakistan.

In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region separatist Sunni Muslim Uyghur factions have conducted numerous attacks, including those with guns and explosives. China has cracked down in response and is trying to have them blacklisted as terrorists, although much of the international community has denounced the Chinese actions, accusing the state of repression.

It appears the clashes in Xinjiang have now become an international problem. Speculation has suggested the bombing in Bangkok was meant as revenge for Thailand deporting over 100 Uyghur Muslims who were in the country illegally back to China in July.

Thailand has been trying to play down the "international terrorism" aspect of the incident, likely so as to avoid any damage to the tourism industry that is a mainstay of the Thai economy. Instead the police have claimed the attackers may have been human traffickers smuggling Uyghurs to Turkey.

China has also been hushing up the terror angle - in an unusual move, given that it has often tried to emphasize Uyghur attacks so as to gain international support for its crackdown as being a part of the general war against terrorism. Apparently, China views the bombing as a security embarrassment it would rather not focus on.

The Uyghur connection

“I think we can now say with a reasonable degree of certainty that there is a Uyghur/Xinjiang angle here, yet the motivations and implications remain cloudy at best," James Leibold, an expert on China's policies regarding ethnic groups at Melbourne's La Trobe University, told the Washington Post.

Leibold said several motives were possible, including warring human trafficking groups or else unstable Thai politics.

"Regardless of these unanswered questions, the incident highlights the increasing internationalization of the ‘Uyghur issue’ and the ‘Xinjiang problem.' The increasing flow of people, ideas and social media imagery into and out of Xinjiang renders these issues far more difficult for the Chinese government to deal with," he added.

While the Chinese authorities have not played up the Uyghur terror angle of the bombing, Leibold estimated the incident would nevertheless help China's "quest for additional resources" to crackdown on Uyghur insurgents, while human rights groups warn of more repression.

Another element that has come clear in the investigation is the Turkish angle - one suspected member of the group that was arrested by Thai police held a fake Turkish passport.

Zhu Feng, an international affairs expert at Nanjing University in southern China, told the Washington Post that "there is no denying the fact that there is an underground, cross-border organized crime group and a secret conduit for international terrorists” from Xinjiang to Turkey through Thailand.

Feng said international condemnation of China's crackdown in Xinjiang is only "helping these underground criminal activities."

Tensions in Xinjiang have spilled on to the international scene before, with Uyghur extremists leaving to conduct terrorism abroad.

Just this January, China reported that 300 citizens, most of them likely Uyghurs, had gone to join Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq via Malasyia.

Ari Yashar


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