Monday, April 6, 2015

Iranian Regime Continues Its Fabrications About Khamenei's Nonexistent Fatwa Banning Nuclear Weapons - MEMRI



by MEMRI
In President Obama's announcement of the joint statement following the conclusion of the negotiations in Lausanne, he again mentioned the nonexistent fatwa, stating as fact that Iran’s Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons. This assertion by the president is not true. Such a fatwa has never been issued, and to this day no one has been able to show it, as MEMRI has detailed in five reports so far.
The following is the sixth MEMRI report, constituting an update about this nonexistent fatwa.
Introduction 

The Iranian regime has persisted in its attempts to deceive the West in the matter of a fatwa that it claims was issued by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei banning nuclear weapons. The deception focuses on both the fatwa's alleged date of issue and on its alleged content. This fatwa has never been presented by Iran and in fact does not exist. 

An Iranian international law expert published, on the BBC Persian website, an article stating that no such fatwa was ever issued.

One (Nonexistent) Fatwa – Many Dates

Following the continuing pressure on the Iranian regime to come up with Khamenei's (nonexistent) fatwa that allegedly bans nuclear weapons, the regime recently published, on one of the two websites where Khamenei's fatwas are published, a letter sent by Khamenei in April 2010 to the Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation. The letter, in Farsi, Arabic, English, and Spanish, was posted under the heading "New Fatwas." (see Appendix I). On February 26, 2015, Khamenei tweeted, "We consider the use of WMDs as Haraam [forbidden]" and linked to the letter on the website.[3]

The presentation of this letter as a (new) fatwa proves that no such fatwa was ever issued before; likewise, the letter to the conference does not constitute a religiously binding fatwa, but is a political statement with no religious significance.

Additionally, the nonexistent fatwa has over the years been given different dates of issue by different Iranian regime spokesmen, but none have ever actually presented it.[4]

In May 2012, before being elected president, Hassan Rohani claimed that the fatwa was issued in 2004, when was heading the Iranian delegation to the nuclear talks with the EU3. He also stated that it was he, Rohani, who had thought to present Khamenei's statements in a November 5, 2004 Friday sermon at Tehran University to the EU3 prior to the signing of the November 2004 Paris Agreement, as a fatwa to guarantee that Iran was not striving to develop nuclear weapons.[5]

As noted, the Khamenei sermon that Rohani presented as a fatwa was delivered in 2004, whereas Khamenei's letter to the conference, identified as a "new" fatwa on his website, is dated 2010. 

One (Nonexistent) Fatwa – Different Content

Furthermore, Khamenei, in his November 5, 2004 sermon, defined possessing, storing, and using nuclear weapons as "problematic" – not as "prohibited (haram)."[6] However, in his 2010 letter, Khamenei defines nuclear weapons as prohibited (haram; see Appendix I).[7]

Appendix I: Khamenei's Letter To The 2010 Tehran Conference

The following screenshot shows Khamenei's April 2010 letter to the Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, under the "New Fatwas" section of his fatwas website.


Source: Khamenei.ir, accessed March 23, 2015.

Appendix II: Iranian International Law Expert: "Where Is The Iranian Leader's Original Fatwa Banning Nuclear Weapons? And What Does It Say? In Reality, So Far No One Has Claimed To Have Actually Seen The Fatwa" 

On July 16, 2014, BBC Persian posted an article titled "Where Is The Iranian Leader's Fatwa Banning Nuclear Weapons?" by Iranian international law expert Bahman Aghai Diba. In it, Aghai Diba explained that the regime's failure to publish the actual text of the fatwa, coupled with its reliance on a letter by Khamenei to a conference in Tehran, constitute a breach of Shi'ite custom, according to which a published fatwa consists of a question posed to a senior ayatollah together with his reply. According to Aghai Diba, the failure to post the fatwa on Khamenei's various websites, where detailed descriptions of many of his other fatwas do appear, casts doubt on its existence, and prevents it from being examined for both date and content.[8]
 
The following are the main points of his article, as translated from the Persian:[9]

"The Iranian government states that the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran does not aspire to use nuclear energy for military purposes, and in order to prove this point they refer to a fatwa or religious ruling by the Iranian Supreme Leader, which allegedly forbids [the use of] weapons of mass destruction. 

"Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has said that Iran will turn this fatwa into a law in order to reassure several states of the civilian nature [of its nuclear program]. The U.S. Secretary of State also said that this fatwa is important, but should become law. An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman [Afkham] also said, in the past, that the Islamic Republic intends to register this fatwa with the UN.

"But where is the Iranian leader's original fatwa banning nuclear weapons? And what does it say? In reality, so far no one has claimed to have actually seen the fatwa.

"Fatwas have a certain status in Islamic jurisprudence. They have formatting and content requirements. The fatwas are usually in the form of a question asked of a marja' taqlid [the highest jurisprudential authority in Shi'a Islam], and the marja'a gives an answer that is based on Islamic religious sources.

"Keeping in mind that the Iranian leader's fatwa banning nuclear weapons has never been published anywhere, it is not clear what its format and content are. Who asked the question ([i.e.] an ordinary person or a jurist[?]) and what formulas and rules from Islamic religious law were used in order to reply to it? For example, does the word haram [forbidden] appear in it, or are conditions for this ban spelled out? 

"In accordance with the accepted definition of a fatwa (according to the explanation presented in the existing sources that are known to all), [a fatwa] is: 'A publicly applicable religious law concerning a particular issue that is derived from the four sources [of Islamic law]: the Koran, the Sunnah [i.e. the traditions], ijma [consensus among the clerics], and a logical interpretation of the issue by the marja'. 

"It is said that Khamenei's fatwa banning nuclear weapons was issued somewhere around 2005. On October 31, 2013, Iranian Majlis speaker Ali Larijani said that Iran's Supreme Leader has banned the use of nuclear weapons, and the Iranian government wants to register this [fatwa] as a document in the U.N. This is evidence that at least as of that date this fatwa had not been presented in the form of a document to the U.N. At the same time, there is no precedent in history of the registration of such a fatwa in the U.N. 

"When a fatwa is issued by the marja' taqlid, this religious edict reaches the knowledge of the public by various channels. In this day and age, when clerics have extensive means [to publish] both privately and publicly, their fatwas are published on multiple websites, including the official websites of these maraji'. Leader Khamenei's rulings and fatwas are presented on his personal and official websites, on almost every subject, in detail and in a very organized manner, and hundreds of other elements [in Iran] also reiterate these fatwas.

"These edicts are [also] organized according to words, languages, and topics. However, such an important fatwa – a fatwa that bans nuclear weapons – on which many high-ranking officials of the Islamic Republic rely appears nowhere in the abovementioned sources. Its text is not found on any website, nor in any of the numerous collections of the Supreme Leader's publications that are published by the Center for Preserving and Publishing the Works of the Leader, nor in any language. 

"However, the inaccessibility of this fatwa prevents it from being examined in order to determine what the ban on weapons of mass destruction is based on. What extent of mass destruction does it include? When the Iranians and the Iraqis were killed extensively during the Iran-Iraq War (especially owing to Iran's 'human wave' strategy [in which Iran sent masses across minefields]), no marja', including Ayatollah [Ruhollah] Khomeini, issued a fatwa or order to prevent all this slaughter or to define this destruction and slaughter as un-Islamic.

"Ayatollah Khomeini never declared the Iraqi nuclear project 'un-Islamic,' even though it was clearly intended for military use (this [Iraqi] project was stopped by Israel's bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facilities). 

"Some sources have tried to say that Khamenei's fatwa is his April 4, 2010 letter to the Disarmament Conference in Tehran, in which he condemned the use of weapons of mass destruction, calling them 'a violation of human rights and a clear example of war crimes.' But this claim is unacceptable, because this letter is not considered a fatwa. 

"The fatwa banning nuclear weapons by Iran's Supreme Leader remains shrouded in fog."
Endnotes:
[1] Whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/02/statement-president-framework-prevent-iran-obtaining-nuclear-weapon, April 2, 2015.
[3] Twitter.com/Khamenei_ir, February 26, 2015; Farsi.khamenei.ir/treatise-content?id=228&pid=228&tid=-1. Both accessed March 23, 2015.
[8] As noted in this paper, Aghai Diba's article was published in July 2014, and the alleged fatwa was posted in the "New Fatwas" section on Khamenei's fatwa website only after that.  
[9] BBC Persian, July 16, 2014.

MEMRI

 Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8508.htm

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Posted by at No comments:

The West's Romance with Iran and Islamists - Uzay Bulut



by Uzay Bulut
The West seems to have lost the capacity and the will to criticize political Islam.
While "peace-loving" liberals in the West show support and sympathy for Hamas, and have removed Hamas from Europe's terror list, Hamas leaders have been busy expressing their support and sympathy for Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.
Why then, for Europeans, is Hamas a "more acceptable" terrorist group than ISIS? Because it targets Jews?
If these Islamic jihadist groups cannot carry out their mission right away, it is not because they do not want to. It is because they do not have enough power to -- at least for now.

In the eyes of most Islamists -- whether or Sunni or Shia -- nothing is cheaper or more worthless than human life. It can be seen in the accelerating rate of executions in Iran since the "moderate" President Hassan Rouhani arrived on the scene, and in the ghoulish slaughters committed by ISIS.

As terrorists throughout the Muslim world lay down their own lives to bring death, the U.S. and Europe silently watch Islamic terrorism in Sudan, in Pakistan, in Iraq and Syria by ISIS, in Nigeria by Boko Haram and especially in Iran by the Mullahs' regime, which the P5+1 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) deludedly still seem to think will turn nuclear warheads into plowshares.

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, proclaims "Death to America" on March 21, 2015. (Image source: MEMRI video screenshot)

U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers continue talks past deadline after deadline to give Iran -- one of the most corrupt, repressive and genocidal countries on the planet – a nuclear weapons capability to threaten the rest of the Middle East, the U.S. and Europe. Granting nuclear capability is seen as a reward for lying, cheating and breaking treaty after treaty. What a brilliant precedent for everyone else.

The West seems to have lost the will to criticize political Islam. Not speaking out or taking action against Islamists is a sickness not only of the current U.S. government; many intellectuals also seem to suffer from it. In the West, there are goodhearted intellectuals who also apparently wish to deny what an all-enveloping role religion -- and particularly Islam -- plays in shaping and influencing how people think and act.

The Marxist view holds that religion is just a placebo in the face of economic oppression. So, the thinking goes, if there is a problem in a Muslim society, it must mainly stem from poverty, inequality and class conflicts, as well as "Western imperialism." Many people influenced by this view therefore tend to believe that after the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism, the "oppressed" will cast off religion, to which they cling merely for consolation and the hope of a better future in an afterlife. Those who maintain this view remain silent on viciously repressive governments such as Hamas, Iran and North Korea, even as they claim to fight "imperialism" alongside regimes that hate Jews, Christians and women, and, in their effort to expand, are often themselves "imperialist."

In the meantime, many of these intellectuals, who include government leaders, seem to fantasize about the future of the Western and Muslim worlds as if once "capitalism," "American imperialism" and "Zionist occupation" were abolished, these despots would suddenly discover they no longer need violence or Islamic radicalism, and that a sunny new era of peace would begin. So, their view seems to go, if you criticize Islamism, you are an intolerant, hard-hearted "racist" or "bigot," and your remarks are obviously "hate speech."

It seems painful for many intellectuals in the West to understand or accept that a religious ideology which permits enslaving girls, beating "disobedient" wives or chopping off the heads of infidels can exist. They come up with supposed explanations for these acts, including poverty, "American imperialism," or mental illness.

Poverty or imperialism, however, do not cause people to burn people alive, kidnap schoolgirls and sell them at a slave market, while saying that God commands the practice. Poverty, anger or alienation do not cause people to behead or crucify non-Muslims; cite relevant verses of their holy book as a justification, and brag about and film what they do.

These leaders and intellectuals seem wrongfully to associate political Islam with "being oppressed." Political Islam, however, is not the ideology of the oppressed. It is an ideology that oppresses. It brings about the very the sufferings to which these intellectuals object.

Even Egypt's Muslim President, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, seems to have realized that a worldview which makes excuses based on Islamic theology for many of the crimes committed in the Muslim world, only enables even more kidnappings, beheadings and deaths.

While "peace-loving" liberals in the West show support and sympathy for Hamas, as well as removing it from Europe's terrorist list, Hamas leaders have been busy expressing their support and sympathy for Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban:

In 2005, Dr. Mahmoud Zahar, co-founder of Hamas and a member of the Hamas leadership, said, "The Taliban are 1,000 times more honorable than the American occupation and its collaborators... We are not a copy of the Taliban... Judge us according to what we are. Everyone must stop blaming the Taliban for things that in fact characterize the people of the West, who seek to turn the international community into a swamp of corruption and destruction, and to spread abomination and disease in the name of absolute freedom..."

In 2011, Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas's administration in the Gaza Strip said: "We regard this (the killing of Osama Bin Laden) as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood... We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs."

Why then is Hamas a "more acceptable" terrorist group than ISIS? Because it targets Jews? How can Hamas' Western sympathizers be so sure that the same extreme Islamic jihadist groups will not target them, "the infidels," in the future, as they say they will?

If these Islamic jihadist groups cannot carry out their mission right way, it is not because they do not want to. It is because they just do not have enough power to -- at least for now.

Follow Uzay Bulut on Twitter
Uzay Bulut, a journalist born and raised a Muslim, is based in Ankara, Turkey.

 Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5488/islamists-romance

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Posted by at No comments:

A New Pivot for Israel? - Joel B. Levine, MD



by Joel B. Levine, MD

In many ways, China is the modern natural ally for Israel. As compared to Europe, there is no substantial history of overt persecution of Jews and China ranks quite low on scales that measure current anti-Semitic attitudes. China, as are the Jews, is an old civilization and many social values are similar.
For much of its modern history, Israel has been a Western/European State with a Middle East address. Israel, born of Europe after the Holocaust, was to provide the Jewish people with a national identity. For almost 70 years, Israel maintained alliances with nations that shared its democratic political process or was a future home to Jews still within a diaspora. The continuity of these relationships has always been assumed but may prove neither protective nor permanent.

The United States is, by size and distances, a nation that has a reflex for isolation. Despite its 20th century role in global conflict and its 21st century penchant for regional or sectarian wars, its political default is to be averse to entanglements and ambiguous regarding what is or is not a vital national interest.

Such insularity runs deep in our history. Immediately after the outbreak of the First World War, President Wilson promised U.S. neutrality between its warring factions. During his election campaign of 1940, President Roosevelt assured the nation that he would keep it out of foreign and European wars. It was only dramatic triggering events, e.g., the sinking of the Lusitania or Pearl Harbor that changed public opinion.  

For last twenty years we have endured misadventures in a part of the world that is unsatisfying and unforgiving. These are places with wars without end, waged by people who defend what we often find indefensible. The roster expands to places we neither understand and with whom we do not have a readily visible identity. I wonder how many Americans can locate Yemen on a map. In a March 2015 Pew Foundation poll, over 70% of Americans had heard little or nothing about talks with Iran. These are hardly Super Bowl numbers but very relevant to Israel’s future.

Within this context, I am sure the president has read the new cards dealt in the game of Jewish poker. The political and demographic weight of U.S. Jews is diminishing. Numbers are declining in the U.S. and Jews constitute 0.2 % of world population. Jews are just about an anachronism of American history and, as such, may become less protected from the perennial social forces that marginalized them in the past.

Jeff Goldberg in the Atlantic and David Brooks in the New York Times recognized the homology between anti-Jewish and anti-Israel rhetoric. Some Jews imagine they can the parse this difference so that one (Israel) is condemned while the other (Jews) protected. This is a fragile distinction, as just yesterday, an anti-Israel march in Vienna was soon flavored with chants to “kill the Jews”.

These old enmities now occur in a changing strategic context. The president’s policy appears to be one of minimal engagement which calibrates how little involvement in regional events is good enough. Thus, the U.S. is increasingly comfortable with allowing hegemons, as Iran, to seek domain but not dominion. It is a kind of realpolitik trying to ride both Sunni and Shia horses but likely to fall off both.

We are beset with an Ottoman Middle East with few permanently integrated nation-states and with borders which are no longer boundaries. There are active wars between the polarities of Islam, and latent ones, when the currently warring factions reconfigure to confront the common enemy, Israel. Even now, there is progressive encirclement of Israel from Gaza, Golan, Sinai, and the West Bank. Moreover, whether by stealth or the fruition of the Lausanne framework, Iran retains the capacity and the theocratic mindset to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon. As was said by a senior Tehran official the day of the agreement, “the annihilation of Israel is non-negotiable.”

Within this evolving landscape, Israel is no longer firmly anchored to the old shores. The United States has moved from absolute support, based on a moral bond, to a relative one. For an increasing number of Americans, and especially younger people, Israel is the pariah du jour. Soon enough there will be Security Council resolutions decrying its subjugation of the Palestinians and International Court accusations of Israel as a war criminal. It is hardly likely that any American president will risk a Middle East war over this Israel’s fate. This has not been misunderstood in Tel Aviv.

In many ways, China is the modern natural ally for Israel. As compared to Europe, there is no substantial history of overt persecution of Jews and China ranks quite low on scales that measure current anti-Semitic attitudes. China, as are the Jews, is an old civilization and many social values are similar. Intellectual currencies and common interests in advanced technologies make them both viable trading and investment partners.

China has made Africa a crucial part of its outreach development and is strategically close to the Middle East.  It too has a difficult interface with its own Islamic populations and, for self-serving and not wholly admirable reasons, is keenly aware of its vulnerability to aggressive Islamic geopolitics of any stripe. Finally, a positive relationship in the Middle East would constitute its own Western pivot similar to Obama’s to Asia.

Israel was protected by the West for only as long as there was memory and guilt about the treatment of Jews. It is becoming again acceptable and fashionable to see Jews as part of the problem. As Netanyahu said before Congress, Israel is willing to stand alone or, as I believe, may soon stand with someone else.
Joel B. Levine, MD

 Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/a_new_pivot_for_israel.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Posted by at No comments:

Expert: Syrian Kurds are Waiting for Israel - Gedalyah Reback



by Gedalyah Reback
Israel and Iraqi Kurds have kept their ties hidden, but both sides are eager to open up and Kurds in other countries are, too.
  
Kurds in Hasakah province in northeastern Syria (Rojava)
Kurds in Hasakah province in northeastern Syria (Rojava)
Reuters/Stringer
 
Most of Israel’s major allies in the Middle East keep their ties to the Jewish State a secret. This is standard operating procedure for countries like Saudi Arabia, or even Egypt and Jordan with whom Israel has signed treaties but whose citizens still harbor extreme anti-Semitic sentiment and anti-Israel politics.

The same also goes to some extent for Iraqi Kurdistan (or the Kurdistan Regional Government – KRG), although anti-Semitism and extremism in general is far less present among Kurds than their Arab neighbors.

In fact, Israel has had security ties with Iraqi Kurds for decades. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the prospect of an independent Iraqi Kurdistan has enamored Israelis with the possibility of a new strategic ally. Most experts assume there are high-ranking communications between the two governments right now, but are Kurds as eager as Israelis to come out as linked?

“I’d say they are eager,” says Professor Ofra Bengio, head of the Kurdish Studies Program at the Moshe Dayan Center. “I can’t talk about all the Kurds but many are very eager, including some from Iraq and some from Turkey. Their problem is that they feel it is too dangerous to come out publicly.”

Bengio highlights the main issue for Kurds – they might contend with accusations of treachery from Iraqi Arabs, thus creating another point of contention. “On the one hand they want to be public but on the other hand they are reluctant.”

Bengio also notes northern Syria’s Kurdish population. The northeastern pocket of Syria has gained de facto autonomy with the collapse of the country in its civil war, giving what is known as the “West” (Rojava) in Kurdish a taste of independence.

Links with Israel are, however, much more elusive with Kurds in Syria. “They don’t have too many links” explains Bengio, but she says “We (in Israel) should be very much interested in developing a relationship with them. Some Kurdish groups in Rojava are very much interested in developing relations with Israel”

For decades, it was not just Kurdish concerns of Arab enmity that kept Israel and Kurdistan quiet – it was also Israel’s alliance with Turkey. Israel is believed by some to have had a major hand in capturing Abdullah Ocalan, the former leader of the oft-labeled terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). During a several-year war with Turkey, 40,000 people are said to have died in fighting and PKK attacks. With the capture of Ocalan – who now sits in a Turkish prison – Turkey and its Kurdish citizens have entered into a years-long reconciliation process.

The PKK though has not yet earned legitimacy in the eyes of the world, much less Turkey. Rojava’s de facto army - the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) - has been linked to the PKK in the past and thus represents an intolerable thorn in the side of Turkey even today.

So, would linking up with the Rojavans represent a problem for Israel vis-à-vis Turkey?

“I think that this is a myth that doesn’t hold water any longer,” outlines Bengio. For one, the PKK are not launching attacks anymore. Two, the peace process (with Turkey) has been going for a long time now.”

Beyond Kurdish relations with the Turks, Israel does not have to worry about sacrificing anything with Turkey, which has unilaterally severed the relationship with Israel.

“Thirdly, Turkey is coming out so openly in support of Hamas that we should ask, ‘Why should we sit quietly and be afraid of even talking to these people?’”

“We were worried about Turkey and they used to blame us for making the Kurds (in Iraq) a state or Arab countries would accuse us of using the Kurds as a ploy.”

Still, Bengio says Israel is equally eager to bring the relationship out into the open.

“For a long time we were very happy it was quiet and we are still happy. Even though Netanyahu said they deserve a state, he didn’t address relations or how deep they are. Says it would be a positive development. No one has come out and said anything.

Bengio then alludes to a mutual interest of both Israel and KRG, that Israel get closer to Kurds beyond just Iraq.

“Fourth, it is also of interest to the Kurds in the KRG (in Iraq) that we develop relations with other Kurds as well.”

When Arutz Sheva asked if that meant that a possible Syria partition might change the dynamics of diplomacy in the Middle East and be good for both Jerusalem and Erbil, she hinted that it might be, but that the only thing we can say with certainty right now is that Syria will indeed fragment.

“It is a fait accompli. I do not see how anyone will hold Syria together, or Iraq together or Yemen or Libya.”

“It’s not that it’s (necessarily) positive. There is nothing there that Israel can affect or change.”

When asked if fragmentation could create several states who would not align with Sunni Arab states or becomes satellites that would fall into Iran’s orbit, Bengio said we are living in the time of a “paradox.”

“It is a paradox in that Sunni and Arab worlds are aligning with Israel. It does not depend so much on whether they are Sunni or Shiite, but if they are moderate or extremist Sunnis, or moderate or extremist Shiites.”

When asked if last year’s Kurdish oil shipment to Israel was indicative that Kurdistan wanted to lay the ground work for a more open relationship or at the least strengthen economic ties ahead of such an announcement, Bengio said that the Kurds were also restricted about being public with economic connections, hence the strong denials from Erbil. However, she said that Israel gives Kurdistan a degree of reassurance while being pressured by Iraqi Arabs, Iran and the Turks.

“They also want us to be very strong in regards to Iran. It gives them certain strategic depth.”


 Gedalyah Reback

 Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193736#.VSLYTeGzd-8

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Posted by at No comments:

The First Serious Push-Back on the West-Islamist Battlefield of Ideas - Prof. Phyllis Chesler



by Prof. Phyllis Chesler
The capacity of leftist Westerners, including Jews, to proudly embrace and “promote” their enemies is astounding.

 “There is an apocalyptic dimension to global Jihad. Jihadists believe they are engaged in a ‘sacred task’ to redeem the world via conquest. We hide our eyes while they do not hide their intentions.”

Please meet Professor Richard Landes, a medieval historian who specializes in apocalyptic movements. He knows what he is talking about. Landes delivered a stellar speech earlier this week for the Institute for Global Anti-Semitism and Policy (ISGAP).

We sat around a table in a well-appointed room which serves as the ISGAP office in New York City. We were an attentive and appreciative audience.

Landes, who maintains several excellent websites (Second Draft and Augean Stables), is astounded by the global progressive Left’s desire to embrace the “Other”; doing so proves their humanity. However, for the Western-embraced Jihadi, the “Other” (all infidels, the “wrong” kind of Muslims, apostates, homosexuals, etc.) must be “annihilated.”

In the name of anti-racism and anti-imperialism, the progressive Left has made common cause with the most imperialist and racist force on earth. Orwell himself would not be surprised by the way in which hate groups have dubbed themselves “peace” groups.

Westerners do not want to appear provincial, tribal, judgmental, exceptional, and have rushed to embrace “other” cultures, especially those which have not evolved, are intensely tribal, and exceedingly barbaric. It’s a case of “It’s their side, right or wrong.” This alliance is precisely what I have called a Perfect Storm.

The capacity of Westerners, including Jews, to proudly embrace and “promote” their enemies is astounding. Landes showed slides of demonstrations in which leftists in the UK wear tee shirts that say: “We are Hamas.” The foolishness of such “useful idiots” would be quite amusing were it not so tragic.  

Hamas is not a religious and nationalist movement as so many westerners have misguidedly claimed; it is a terrorist and annihilationist entity, cruel to its own people, and dedicated to the extermination of Jews.

Most westerners assume that to Islamists, America is the Great Satan and Israel the Little Satan. Not so, our lecturer insists:

“Many Jihadis view the United States and the rest of Crusader Christianity (i.e. European West) as mere pawns duped by the Jews…victims of the Jewish conspiracy to degrade and enslave all of humankind. First the Jews got the Christians to take the tendered bait (democracy, progressive values), and now they bow to every Jewish whim…

For Jihadis, few victories could compare in value with the destruction of Israel, a triumph of immense symbolic power. It would change the direction of sacred and global history, revive Arab pride and Muslim confidence that their religion will dominate, it would make them ‘the strong horse.’ It would also reveal the frailty of the West, sacrificing an ally to curry favor with an enemy: the weak horse.”

Surreal as this all may sound,  it is the prevailing belief of many Jihadists. They envision the Queen of England wearing a burqa and the flag of Islam over the White House.

Anti-Zionism, which is the new anti-Semitism, has spread like a “visceral virus.” Jihadis have used the West’s free press in order to preach submission, intimidation, enslavement. Indeed, we have seen the liberal-Left Western media “mainstream Jihadi propaganda as news.”  We have also seen Jews who claim to be pro-Israel—proving it by being the first criticize to the Jewish state; in Landes’ words “they have an insatiable appetite for stories of Israel behaving badly.” Or as Anthony Julius has said: “They are proud to be ashamed to be Jewish.”

Christian replacement theology and Palestinian propaganda quite effectively turned Mohammed al-Dura into the little Jewish boy in the ghetto with his hands up, facing armed adult Nazis. This new iconography super-ceded Holocaust-era facticity.

According to Landes:

"The only way for the democratic, multi-cultural, tolerant, self-critical, progressive West to survive the Jihadi attack, is to resist those juicy morsels of moral Schadenfreude about Jews behaving badly, and the unconscious racism of moral expectations involved, even (especially) when offered up by Jews… (they should) resist the temptation when the lethal narratives are not only inaccurate, but wrapped up as descriptions of an apocalyptic evil.

"Ironically, to save itself, “the West must genuinely renounce its long romance with Jew-hatred which, right now, constitutes its single greatest vulnerability.”

Landes hopes that the “progressive Left” will engage in some self-criticism before it is too late. (I doubt that this will happen in time.) Landes also views America as far more tolerant than Europe and as still “exceptional.” He suggests a perfectly sane —and therefore radical—solution for Europe if it is to survive as a post-Enlightenment civilization.

In my view, we are now all Israelis. Civilians anywhere, everywhere, are potential targets. Increasingly, at airports, in government buildings, at television stations, the security has grown tight, and resembles the kind of security that Israel alone was first forced to pioneer and that now exists for every Jewish building in Europe and the United States.

I would say that, post 9/11, Jihad is here as well.

ISGAP represents the first serious push-back on the “battlefield of ideas.”

ISGAP now has a foothold at Fordham and Harvard law schools, Stanford and McGill. It's now at Columbia Law, Sapienza University in Rome, the University of Paris-Sorbonne, and at the University of Chile. In the 2014-2015 academic year, ISGAP presented more than 100 seminars in English, French and Italian.

This coming summer, ISGAP will be training professors at Oxford. Applications have poured in from Canada, the United States, the UK, Russia, China, Brazil and Argentina.

 Prof. Phyllis Chesler

 Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16738#.VSKSPeGzd-8

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Posted by at No comments:

UJA-Federation & Jewish Communal Fund Support Anti-Zionist New Israel Fund - Ronn Torossian



by Ronn Torossian

The NIF is so harmful to Israel that the Likud – the ruling party of Israel – called them just last month an “anti-Zionist organization,” and called it responsible for the Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead.

634885199350344688_new-israel-fund-logoA Zionist leader, Ze’ev Jabotinsky wrote an essay in 1929 called “Peace” where he wrote:
A noisy whining is now being set up by a chorus of “peace seekers” who aim to achieve (by preaching exclusively to Jews) conciliation with the Arabs. It is difficult to free oneself from a feeling of disgust. On the morrow of a slaughter so mean and so foul – let us confess our sins and ask that they not beat us again.
Along these lines, those who financially – and politically – support an organization which supports boycotts of Israel, and is hostile to the Israel Defense Forces cannot lead the Jewish community.  Hence, Alisa Doctoroff, President of the UJA-Federation and Karen Adler of The Jewish Communal Fund must immediately renounce their support and significant financial donations to the New Israel Fund (NIF).  If not, they must resign from leading these major Jewish-American organizations.

The NIF is so harmful to Israel that the Likud – the ruling party of Israel – called them just last month an “anti-Zionist organization,” and called it responsible for the Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead.  A statement noted, “The Likud, as an ideological, nationalist party, will not cooperate with organizations who act non-stop to blacken Israel’s face.” Hence, UJA-Federation is standing with an organization that Israel’s government calls Anti-Zionist.

Perhaps UJA-Federation fundraisers should say “Stand With UJA & Anti-Zionism.”

A spokesperson for Israel’s economic minister in referring to New Israel Fund said, “We will not take part in a conference in which an anti-Zionist organization that invests all its time and money in harming IDF soldiers and the State of Israel as a Jewish State is involved.”

The New Israel Fund never has a nice thing to say about Israel.  They claim to be Pro-Israel, but their whole purpose seems to be to hurt Israel, and their “support” only damages Israel.  We hear often about “oppression” of the Palestinians, yet we do not hear them speak about the dangers of Iran.

Liberals like Doctoroff – and other Jewish communal leaders like Karen R. Adler of  The Jewish Communal Fund – claim to be all about acceptance and democracy and openness – yet represent extremist viewpoints by supporting NIF.  This cannot continue.

As an ardent Zionist, I am yet to encounter anyone who believes Israel is perfect. David Ben—Gurion the 1st Prime Minister said: “We will know we have become a normal country when Jewish thieves and Jewish prostitutes conduct their business in Hebrew.” Things are far from perfect in Israel – but it’s a pretty tough neighborhood, and Israel is constantly striving to improve.

Lenin called those who work against their own people’s best interests in support of their enemies “helpful idiots” – and that is what the New Israel Fund is.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky said: “What interest can the Jewish nation have in individuals whose supreme pride consists in the fact that they have renounced their own people? The bitter root of our shame and our suffering is that we do not give our own people the full love of a patriot. It would be better if we did not love our people at all, if we were unconcerned as to whether it existed or had disappeared, rather than that we should love it halfway which means to despise it.”

Those who support New Israel Fund cannot lead Jewish organizations.
Ronn Torossian is one of America’s most prolific and respected public relations experts. Torossian is the Founder, President and CEO of 5W Public Relations, one of the 25 largest independent American PR firms, which was named PR Agency of the Year by the American Business Awards. He is the best-selling author of “For Immediate Release: Shape Minds, Build Brands, and Deliver Results with Game-Changing Public Relations,” a book known as an industry “must read.” Torossian is a featured op-ed columnist for The Huffington Post, Newsmax, Wired Magazine and others. He is the recipient of multiple awards, including PR Executive of the Year and is a past semi-finalist for Entrepreneur of the Year by Ernst & Young. Torossian lives in Manhattan with his wife and children. Connect with him on Google+ and Twitter.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/ronn-torossian/uja-federation-jewish-communal-fund-support-anti-zionist-new-israel-fund/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Posted by at No comments:

Turkey: "Zero Problems with Neighbors" - Burak Bekdil



by Burak Bekdil
After losing Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and Egypt, Turkey has now lost Libya.
More U.S. politicians are realizing that their country's old staunch ally, Turkey, has turned into an unstable, unreliable, authoritarian and part-time friend that has the habit of sending shipments of arms to Middle Eastern Islamists of a variety of radical behavior.

In a speech in December 2011, Turkey's then foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu (now Prime Minister) said that Turkey's Middle East foreign policy had pushed an "isolated" Israel to "kneel down" before the Turkish Republic. He also claimed that his own "zero problems with neighbors" policy would succeed.

More than three years later, however, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has admitted to Turkey's own isolation. "I do not mind isolation in the world," Erdogan said, and claimed that "other world leaders might be jealous of him."

Apparently, Messrs Erdogan and Davutoglu may have failed in formulating a realistic foreign policy calculus, but they have proven their skills in black humor.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (left) is the architect of Turkey's "zero problems with neighbors" policy, which ironically has led Turkey to have no ambassador in Israel, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Cyprus and Armenia. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) says, "I do not mind isolation in the world," claiming that other world leaders might be jealous of him.

In a speech in parliament on March 24, opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu said that the government's "foreign policy has collapsed ... Turkey is entirely isolated ... For the first time in its history Turkey does not have ambassadors in four capitals [in its region]." Turkey is, in fact, the only country in the world that does not have ambassadors in all of Israel, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Libya (in addition to two non-Muslim neighbors, Cyprus and Armenia). But there is more.

One of Erdogan's (and Davutoglu's) strategic policy goals was to fulfill a long-time Turkish dream: full membership in the European Union (EU). A recent report by an independent body revealed how Turkey's regional isolation in the Middle East echoes on the EU front as well. The Independent Turkish Commission, a non-governmental organization led by former Finnish president, Martti Ahtisaari, reported on March 17 that the EU and Turkey were in fact drifting apart instead of drawing closer together, "due to growing authoritarianism, stuttering growth and faltering Kurdish peace process" in Turkey.

The commission summarized it all in one line: Turkey is no longer "the rising regional star." The commission's diagnosis was extremely realistic: "With a 900-kilometer border with Syria, [Turkey] is hosting nearly two million Syrian refugees and is vulnerable to attacks and infiltration by the Islamic State. Tensions with both Iran and Israel have become deeply entrenched, and the country has become increasingly dependent on energy from a revanchist Russia."

Indeed, while trying obsessively to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Turkey has created its own Peshawar (a restive, terror-stricken Afghan region) along its border with Syria by supporting various jihadist groups, at the price of suspicious (and belated) looks from its Western and NATO allies.

Additionally, after losing Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Egypt, Turkey has now lost Libya.

In late February, Libya's internationally recognized government accused Turkey of sending weapons to Islamist groups in the country, and said it would stop dealing with Turkey. Libya's prime minister, Abdullah al-Thinni, did not even resort to any diplomatic language: "Turkey is a state that is not dealing honestly with us. It's exporting weapons to us so the Libyan people kill each other." A few days earlier, al-Thinni's government had said it would end all contracts with Turkish companies. That means a loss of billions of dollars worth of business, mostly for Turkey's construction companies.

Against that backdrop, more U.S. politicians are realizing that their country's old staunch ally, Turkey, has turned into an unstable, unreliable, authoritarian and part-time friend that has the habit of sending shipments of arms to Middle Eastern Islamists of a variety of radical behavior.

In an unusual move, a group of 74 U.S. Senators sent an unprecedented letter to Secretary of State John Kerry on March 18, to express their concern over "deviations from the basic principles of democracy in Turkey." The signatories -- who make up three fourths of the U.S. Senate -- said: "We write to express our deep concern about the persistence of human rights violations in Turkey." About a month earlier, 90 members of the US Congress had sent a similar letter to Kerry.

Erdogan's response was typically Erdogan. He accused the U.S. Congress for being "for hire." Turkey's pro-Erdogan media claimed the U.S. senators who signed the letter had been bribed.

A few days after the Senators' letter to Kerry, the U.S. administration expressed concerns over "Turkey's press freedom violations, as well as its interference with freedom of assembly and the administration of justice."

U.S. State Department Press Office Director Jeff Rathke said that the U.S. remains concerned about freedom of expression and assembly in Turkey.

Not surprisingly, Turkey's international isolation is growing exponentially. But Prime Minister Davutoglu remains a useful tool in forecasting regional developments. Whatever he predicts, any smart man should go and bet on the opposite option.


Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5471/turkey-zero-problems-neighbors

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Posted by at No comments:

Blocking the French initiative - Zalman Shoval



by Zalman Shoval

It must be noted that when it comes to the Iranian nuclear issue, France takes a much more responsible and determined position than the United States. However, it seems that the French believe there is no contradiction between supporting a Palestinian statehood resolution at the U.N.

The impressive victory of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy's center-right Union for a Popular Movement in the recent local elections is a predictor of the Left's expected loss in the upcoming French presidential elections two years from now. 

This is not surprising, as not only is the French economy failing to recover under the wishy-washy management of the Left, but also, an analysis of the 2012 election revealed that President François Hollande won thanks to two phenomena that are unlikely to repeat themselves: First, the far Right under the leadership of Marine Le Pen refused to support Sarkozy in the second and determinative round, and second, Muslim voters turned out in droves to vote for the Left. 

Due to this, it is possible that Hollande believes that taking pro-Arab stances on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not hurt his standing locally, especially if the positions are consistent with Paris's approach to the issue since 1967. After all, in 1980, France was the principle drafter of the Venice Declaration, issued by the EU's predecessor, the European Economic Community. It called for the acknowledgement of the Palestinian right to self-determination and the Palestine Liberation Organization's right to be involved in the establishment of a Palestinian state.

In 1967, France opposed the British version of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which was contingent upon Israeli withdrawal from specific territories to determine secure and recognized borders -- instead, the French demanded withdrawal from "all territories." In the same vein, France tried last autumn to initiate a Security Council resolution that would have given new expression to its former demands, regarding both a Palestinian state and its borders, but the attempt was shut down by the United States.

Many articles have appeared of late suggesting that France is looking to renew its initiative, which this time is rumored to include a specific reference to the 1967 "borders" and to Jerusalem as a capital of both states. Not included in the proposal are the cancellation of the Palestinians' claimed right of return and the recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. 

The French apparently believe that after the U.S. administration's talk of "reassessing" the best way to achieve a two-state solution, there is a chance that Washington will allow their proposal to pass this time, even if the U.S. does not directly support it. Still, it seems that Paris has not made a final decision on the move due, among other reasons, to being unsure of the American stance on the matter. 

Israel is also unsure, and that is why the majority of its diplomatic and political activities in the near future should focus on ensuring the continued opposition of the United States to France's troubling initiative -- and it is possible that the Iranian issue will help Israel achieve that goal. 

Still, France's balance sheet is not entirely in the negative. It must be noted that when it comes to the Iranian nuclear issue, France takes a much more responsible and determined position than the United States. However, it seems that the French believe there is no contradiction between supporting a Palestinian statehood resolution at the U.N. and exercising caution when it comes to Iran -- yet both affect Israel's security and its future.


Zalman Shoval

 Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12189

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, April 5, 2015

What's Bibi's Iran Strategy? - J.P. Golbert



by J.P. Golbert

In fact, it appears that Obama has decided to capitulate.  There are reports emanating recently from Jordan that the U.S. has told Arab countries that Iran is to be America’s full partner in the Middle East and they will have to cultivate their relations with the mullahs. 

An interim deal has been made with Iran, ignoring the admonitions of Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and capitulating to Iran on all important points.  There has been much written about how Arab countries will respond but not much about the possible Israeli response.

The Obama administration had essentially two reactions to Netanyahu’s address to Congress: Netanyahu said nothing new and offered no alternative to the agreement being negotiated with Iran.  The former is irrelevant; the issue is not whether Netanyahu said anything new.  The relevant question is whether what he said is true.  If so, then it bears repeating, because the Obama administration has lost sight of the goal, which was, ostensibly at least, to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capability. 

As to the latter, the Obama administration has a point, in a way.  What Netanyahu said is the truth and nothing but the truth, but he did not tell the whole truth. 

The administration maintains that there is no alternative to the agreement being finalized except war.  Netanyahu said the alternative to this agreement is a better agreement, because the mullahs need the agreement more than the Americans. 

On the other hand, Netanyahu pointed out that Iran has consistently cheated on its commitments and obligations, has lied and stonewalled the IAEA inspectors, and clearly cannot be trusted. 

There is no reason to enter into a contract with someone who cannot be trusted.  No lawyer in the world is smart enough to write a contract that will protect you against a scoundrel.  The best that can be done is to give you a good case in court.  But there is no court that can enforce Iranian compliance with the agreement.  No international court has the military and economic means to coerce Iran to comply.  The other parties to the agreement have to enforce the agreement.  Ultimately, they must be ready to use force against violations.

How likely is that?  If Iran is caught running too many centrifuges, will the 5+1 go to war?  Certainly not.  There might be some low-level sanction, which will not stop the centrifuges.  Once the world is doing business again with a petroleum-rich Iran, reimposing real sanctions is not clearly doable in the present economic climate. 

If the mullahs are caught developing weaponization technology, who will go to war?  The U.S.?  Obama will not send the U.S. military against Iran, and if the U.S. will not go, no one will.  And the mullahs know that.  They will not test the first nuclear “device” on Iranian soil.  By the time they detonate a nuclear device in Iran (as opposed to North Korea or Pakistan), it will be too late.  They will have already have put away a stockpile. 

That being the case, why pursue a better agreement?  In reality, the Obama administration is right in saying that the alternative is war.  But the alternative to war is not an agreement.  The truth is that the alternatives are regime change, war or capitulation to Iran.  If Netanyahu were to tell the whole truth, he would have noted that the 5+1 do not seem to be engineering regime change, and he would have asked whether the U.S. and the rest of the 5+1 have decided to capitulate to Iran.  If they have not, then would they prefer to go to war now or when Iran is armed with nuclear weapons? 

In fact, it appears that Obama has decided to capitulate.  There are reports emanating recently from Jordan that the U.S. has told Arab countries that Iran is to be America’s full partner in the Middle East and they will have to cultivate their relations with the mullahs.  (See here, citing Oraib Rantawi, described as a “senior Jordanian commentator, close to the Royal Court.”)  If accurate, the realignment of American policy is clearly the impetus behind the sudden Jordan-Iran alliance.  It also means that Obama was lying all along about his commitment to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capability and was in fact protecting the Iranian nuclear project, and that everything, including the sanctions on Iran, was only to forestall Israeli action against Iran. 

This is consistent with reports that Obama also derailed an Israeli strike by publicly trumpeting intelligence that it would be launched from Azerbaijan and that, last year, he prevented Israel from mounting a strike by warning that the U.S. would shoot down Israeli planes en route to Iran – i.e., that the USA would act as Iran's first line of defense against Israel.

That would also explain Netanyahu’s assertion that the days of Jewish helplessness in the face of genocidal hatred are over, and that if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.  Either that was a non sequitur for the purpose of bravado or it tells the world that it had better return the sanctions in order to deter Israel again.  Sanctions will not stop the centrifuges, of course, any more than sanctions stopped the North Korean government from pursuing nuclear capability, even while the masses starved to death, quite literally.  So why does it make sense to return full sanctions on Iran?  It makes sense because the regime of the mullahs is unstable and vulnerable at this time, and sanctions, coupled with other stressful measures, might cause it to fall, unlike in 2009. 

As noted, the question is not only about this agreement.  Any agreement with Iran is worthless and is simply surrender with a fig leaf to hide America’s shame and the shame of the rest of the free world.  Netanyahu surely knows that.  If so, what did he want to accomplish with the speech? 

For one thing, he certainly wants to derail the agreement.  With no agreement, it might be possible to get full sanctions reimposed.  As it appears now, coercing Israeli inaction was the sole purpose of the imposition of sanctions – not deterring Iran from its imperialist and genocidal course, but to deter Israel from striking at the Iranian nuclear installations.  It was Obama running interference for the mullahs by creating the pretext of a diplomatic process to compel suicidal Israeli inaction in the face of a genocidal threat.  It also gave him time to pursue the hidden agenda of his radical reorientation of American foreign policy. 

Another possible explanation is that Netanyahu’s purpose was to marshal support in the Congress for a pre-emptive Israeli strike, which might be extreme and might elicit extreme responses by Islamic terrorists all over the world against the West especially.  I am not knowledgeable of the relevant military matters and I do not know what military options Israel might have.  For all I know, it might be that the only way Israel has is to nuke Iran back to the Stone Age.

If the Islamic Republic falls, that will not be necessary.  Is that Netanyahu's purpose?  We don't know.
J.P. Golbert  has practiced law in New York, California and Israel for a multi-national clientele including Israeli NGOs and was also a law professor in Los Angeles.  He has practiced law in Jerusalem since 1986 and has contributed numerous opinion pieces to various media outlets.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/whats_bibis_iran_strategy.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Posted by at 1 comment:

NPR: The Deal Struck with Iran Was Not the Deal Announced by President - Lev Tsitrin



by Lev Tsitrin

"Iranian and American officials are busy selling the deal back home, but it does seem as if they're talking about two different agreements." 

NPR aired a fascinating segment Saturday morning.  "Iranian and American officials are busy selling the deal back home, but it does seem as if they're talking about two different agreements."  "The American description of [termination of sanctions], as portrayed in the State Department's fact sheet on the deal, asserts that no U.N. sanctions can be lifted until Iran completes a hefty list of tasks, including scaling back its enrichment of nuclear fuel, converting a heavy water reactor and an underground enrichment facility, so that no nuclear fuel can be produced and answering long-standing questions about its past nuclear activity." Yet Iran "stated that all sanctions relief – U.N., EU and U.S. – would be immediate. It was unequivocal. It stated that Iran under the deal was free to pursue industrial scale enrichment to fuel its own reactors – unequivocal. It stated that Iran was unhindered in its ability to conduct centrifuge R&D."

To understand what actually was agreed to, let us put ourselves into negotiators' shoes.  On midnight March 31, the deadline passes – yet there is no substantive agreement.  There is only a nod to giving it another day's worth of trying.  During the next day, there is no agreement either, nor is there one in the offing. 

What to do?  Admitting that negotiations to reach the general "framework agreement" failed would render meaningless the June 30 deadline for reaching the detailed agreement.  Without the "framework agreement" there is nothing to negotiate.  How to save the June 30 deadline without having a March 31 deal -- and without losing face? 

Easy: agree that a framework agreement was agreed on – but do not sign it, and thus simply do not "agree on what they agreed on"!

Hence, "a senior U.S. official, speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the talks, says Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif let each other know in advance that their narratives would be different."

And this is the only thing one can be sure was agreed on in the much-touted "framework agreement."
Lev Tsitrin

 Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/npr_the_deal_struck_with_iran_was_not_the_deal_announced_by_president_.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)