Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Iran Rejects Outright U.S. Terms For Future Inspection - A. Savyon and Y. Carmon


by A. Savyon and Y. Carmon

Kerry's remarks indicate that the administration knows very well that Khamenei is lying about the fatwa, and about the ostensible religious ban on nuclear weapons.

Introduction
 
In a June 16, 2015 statement, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry officially acknowledged that the U.S. is aware of the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program.[1] Kerry said: "The possible military dimensions, frankly, gets distorted a little bit in some of the discussions in that we're not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another... We know what they did... We have no doubt. We have absolute knowledge with respect to certain military activities they were engaged in."[2]

This statement reveals the Iranian deception, which has been accepted by the Obama administration, regarding the existence of a fatwa by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei banning nuclear weapons.[3] Kerry's remarks indicate that the administration knows very well that Khamenei is lying about the fatwa, and about the ostensible religious ban on nuclear weapons.

The Concessions Demanded From The U.S. In Order To Allow An Agreement To Be Reached
 
U.S. Concession On Investigating Iran's Possible Military Dimensions (PMD)

Kerry clarified that the U.S. was not interested in focusing on Iran's past military violations, because it is aiming to ensure that the Iranian nuclear program can be inspected in the future. He said: "What we're concerned about is going forward. It's critical to us to know that going forward, those activities have been stopped and that we can account for that in a legitimate way... That clearly is one of the requirements, in our judgment for what has to be achieved in order to have a legitimate agreement... And in order to have an agreement, to trigger any kind of material, significant sanctions relief, we would have to have those answers."[4]

With this statement, the U.S. waives its demand regarding Iran's PMD – that is, that Iran provide explanations to the IAEA on previous suspicions of PMD of its nuclear program. Without this demand, all future inspection arrangements will be meaningless, because this concession by the U.S. sets a precedent for Iran to refrain from responding to any suspicions raised in the future.[5]

Possible U.S. Concession Also On Future Inspections

At this point, it appears that the U.S. might back down on future inspections in two additional areas:

·   According to as-yet-unverified reports, instead of "any time any place" inspections,[6] a committee comprising representatives of all countries participating in the negotiations, including Iran, would decide whether particular suspect Iranian facilities will be inspected, if they can reach a consensus on this. In this way, the IAEA will be stripped of all independent authority.

·   Access to military facilities, if allowed at all – and at this time, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the Majlis, and Iran's negotiating team all reject this option out of hand – will no longer be a precondition for an agreement, but will be postponed until after an agreement is reached.

What Went Wrong In The Negotiations Process?
 
The U.S. and Iranian perceptions of the essence and implications of a comprehensive nuclear agreement are diametrically opposed: 

The U.S. Perception 

The U.S. sees a comprehensive nuclear agreement as a chance to turn over a new leaf with Iran, and even to obtain U.S. and Western influence in the country, thus transforming it from a hostile state to a friendly state that shares interests with the West.

Thus, the Obama administration's policy is based on the rescinding of the six UN Security Council resolutions that punish Iran for its nuclear violations, and is likewise based on disregarding IAEA reports expressing suspicion that Iran is committing violations. This is why the Iranian dossier in the IAEA was dealt with based on the international community's view of Iran as a suspect state with six UNSC resolutions still pending against it for various nuclear violations. 

However, since the negotiations with Iran were taken over by the Obama administration, and are no longer in the hands of the EU3, Iran has been transformed from a suspect state under investigation and punishment to a partner of equal standing in negotiations, in which its demands have the same status as the demands of the other side. That is, a quasi-judicial process against a suspect – Iran – has become a negotiation between judge and suspect. 

All this is aimed at transforming Iran de facto into a state friendly to the West and under Western influence.  The model for this is U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's bringing Egypt, in the 1970s, and later China and the Soviet Union, to stances that were friendlier to the West.

The Iranian Perception 

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei completely rejects the U.S.'s view. As far as he is concerned, the agreement is righting a wrong inflicted on Iran, and has nothing to do with turning over a new leaf – no expurgation of the past, and no transformation of Iran into a state friendly to the West, open to Western influence, or sharing Western interests. He perceives these latter notions as a plot to bring down the ideological camp that he heads, to elevate Iran's pragmatic camp, and to eliminate the Islamic revolutionary regime – a process which he will prevent. In his view, Iran's future is in reliance on an independent "resistance economy" – and absolutely not on the West and on foreign investments.

Therefore, we assess that Khamenei is unwilling to reach any agreement that conforms to what the U.S. seeks. It will be remembered that in April 2015 at Lausanne, the Iranians categorically refused to sign anything  or even to shake hands with the other side, and that even a positive outcome to the negotiations will not be in the form of an agreement between the sides, but will be transferred to the U.N. Security Council for a resolution. 

It appears that Khamenei's view has some basis in reality. The Obama administration is offering all these concessions neither out of naiveté nor as a conciliatory move per se, but in a realpolitik effort that is manipulative in essence and imperialist in nature, which aims for regime change in Iran not via authentic internal processes but by means of external political manipulation. The ideological camp is also aware of these intentions, and has for several years been preparing to thwart them, particularly following the emergence of the civil protest movement of 2009.[7]
 
Just as Iran is not letting go of the notion of itself as an empire, it cannot let go of the idea of American policy as an imperialist attempt to manipulate the internal power brokers in Iran, to play kingmaker, and to bring down the regime. This is also why it is suspicious and completely distrustful of the Obama administration; despite all this administration's gestures to Iran, and its submission to Iran's demands, its policy is still perceived as nothing more than part of an imperialist American plot to bring down the current regime. This attitude explains the widespread use of terminology regarding the U.S. that regime spokesmen are unwilling to relinquish – "the Global Arrogance," "the Great Satan," and the slogan "Death to America" that was reiterated by Khamenei most recently on March 21, 2015 in a speech marking Norooz, the Persian New Year, and in response to President Obama's Norooz greetings to the Iranian people (see MEMRI TV Clip No. 4838).[8]
 
In June 4, 2015 statements at the tomb of Iranian regime founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Khamenei confirmed this position, saying: "Everyone must know that the Arrogance [the U.S.] is still eying our nation because of its geopolitical importance and its wealth. They have not retreated, and  they will retreat only when the Iranian nation finds a particular strength and progress that brings them to despair... The continuation of the use of the defining and practical term 'the Great Satan,' is highly significant. When a certain person or a certain apparatus is defined as Satan, then it is obvious how you should act towards it and how you should feel about it. The Imam [Khomeini] felt this way about America until his final day, calling it 'the Great Satan'... This is the logic of the Imam with regard to the struggle against the Arrogance, and this logic makes it possible for us to understand today's global issues and the proper position for us to take [regarding them]...

"Everyone must know that our enemy [the Americans], with its shifting facial expressions – sometimes glowering, sometimes smiling, sometimes with promises, sometimes with threats – aims to take over the country. The enemy wants to regain the limitless control of Iran [that it once had], and it is against Islam because Islam vigorously opposes its return... The enemy opposes Islam because it knows that Islam's dictates  are like a mighty dam in its path. It opposes the Iranian nation because this nation stands fast against it like a mountain. It will be even more opposed to those in this nation who show greater steadfastness against it... It is even more opposed to revolutionary organizations and institutions, and Hizbullah elements [such as the IRGC, the Basij, etc.], because it knows that they are like a mighty dam that prevents it from infiltrating.

"The enemy seeks control, and all its efforts are geared towards preventing the Iranian regime's Islamic movement, which advances the nation. A senior American statesman said... 'What is important to us is [the regime of] Islamic Iran, because Iran wants to establish a civilization.' [But] he used the wrong term, 'empire.' He said, 'We must see Iran as our most significant enemy.' This statement shows us how important it is to build [our] nation."[9]
 
Conclusion

Khamenei will continue to obstruct the negotiations, deliberately thwarting representatives of his rival, the pragmatic camp, by insisting on demands that can never be met. Not only that, but he can be expected to prevent the pragmatic camp from implementing the American vision of an agreement – that is, opening Iran to American and Western economic, political, and cultural influences – even if it means using force, which has happened before in the history of the Iranian Revolution.

*A. Savyon is Director of the MEMRI Iranian Media Project; Y. Carmon is President of MEMRI.

Endnotes:
[1] On April 2, 2015 President Obama hinted in a statement following the Lausanne declaration about his knowledge that Iran's nuclear program included military dimensions, when he said: "Iran's past efforts to weaponize its program will be addressed." Whitehouse.gov, April 2, 2015.
[2] Bnd.com, June 16, 2015.
[4] Bnd.com, June 16, 2015. State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke told reporters on June 12, 2015 that there is a possibility that the U.S. would settle for an agreement between Iran and the IAEA on investigation of the PMD that would be implemented in the future. It should be mentioned that during the press briefing, Rathke was asked about Kerry's public statement in April 2015 that the issue of the PMD is a precondition to an agreement, and his current position that the topic would be addressed after an agreement. State.gov, June 12, 2015. Also see press briefing by State Department spokesman John Kirby on June 19, 2015.
[5] The following day, State Department spokesman John Kirby issued a partial denial and said that there wasn't "any kind of concession or change in the policy. It's just simply not true... The sanctions lifting will only occur as Iran takes the steps agreed, including addressing possible military dimensions." He added: "We've said we're not looking for a confession (from Iran); we've already made judgments about the past" Cnn.com, June 16, 2015.
[6] On April 2, 2015 President Obama addressed the Lausanne declaration and said: "This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.  Iran will face strict limitations on its program, and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.  So this deal is not based on trust, it’s based on unprecedented verification... International inspectors will have unprecedented access not only to Iranian nuclear facilities, but to the entire supply chain that supports Iran’s nuclear program -- from uranium mills that provide the raw materials, to the centrifuge production and storage facilities that support the program.  If Iran cheats, the world will know it.  If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it.  Iran's past efforts to weaponize its program will be addressed.  With this deal, Iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world." Whitehouse.gov, April 2, 2015. See also April 6, 2015 statements by U.S. deputy national security adviser for strategic communication Ben Rhodes to Israel's Channel 2: Asked directly if the IAEA would have anytime, anywhere access, Rhodes said, “Yes, if we see something that we want to inspect.” “In the first place we will have anytime, anywhere access the nuclear facilities,” he said, referring to “the whole supply chain.” And, he added, “if there is a suspicious site, for instance somewhere in a military base in Iran, and we want to seek access to that, we will be able to go to the IAEA and get that inspection because of the additional protocol of the IAEA that Iran will be joining and some of the additional transparency and inspections measures that are in the deal.” Timesofisrael.com, April 6, 2015. Also, see June 8, 2015 statements by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken: "[W]e would not agree to a deal unless the IAEA is granted access to whatever Iranian sites are required to verify that Iran’s program is exclusively peaceful – period.” State.gov, June 8, 2015. Also see U.S. document published following the Lausanne declaration on April 2, 2015: "Iran will be required to grant access to the IAEA to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of a covert enrichment facility, conversion facility, centrifuge production facility, or yellowcake production facility anywhere in the country." State.gov, April 2, 2015.
[7] It should be mentioned that contrary to the U.S. administration's claim that its initiative began only after the election of Iranian President Rohani, the pragmatic camp representative, in 2013, the U.S. began secret negotiations with Iran during the era of his predecessor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
[9] Tasnim (Iran), June 4, 2015.
A. Savyon is Director of the MEMRI Iranian Media Project; Y. Carmon is President of MEMRI.

Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8624.htm

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

Importing a Potential Epidemic - Arnold Ahlert



by Arnold Ahlert

What Americans don’t know is that the Obama administration ignored Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines that apply to legal immigrants and prevent the unvaccinated, or those with a “communicable disease of public health significance,” from entering the country.



unnamedBy now most Americans are familiar with the Obama administration’s ongoing effort to force-feed amnesty for illegals to a largely recalcitrant American public. The most egregious part of this effort occurred during last year’s border “surge” when the administration not only embraced the admittance of tens of thousands of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) into our nation, but the purposeful and secret dispersal of them into all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. What Americans don’t know is that the Obama administration ignored Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines that apply to legal immigrants and prevent the unvaccinated, or those with a “communicable disease of public health significance,” from entering the country. As a result, it is quite possible the outbreak of unknown diseases or those mostly eradicated in the U.S. for quite some time is no coincidence. The administration’s stance on the issue? A combination of silence, denial, or blame-shifting to the anti-vaxxer crowd.

We begin with last year’s outbreak of Enterovirus D68 (EV-D68), a disease that paralyzed and killed American children. That in and of itself should have elicited a media firestorm, along with demands for establishing the origins of the outbreak beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet coverage was scant. Reporter Sharryl Attkisson revealed the disease was first identified in California in 1962, but that outbreaks had been relatively rare. She further noted the CDC “hasn’t suggested reasons for the current uptick or its origin.” Sundance at theconservativetreehouse.com attempted to correlate the outbreaks of the disease with the location of UAC shelters. And while part of his investigation was stymied by the reality that the administration kept many of those shelter locations secret, “there are significant numbers of them in both cities in which the current outbreak was first identified,” he explained.

Ultimately, it was the Daily Caller that reported the disease “was likely propelled through America by President Barack Obama’s decision to allow tens of thousands of Central Americans across the Texas border, according to a growing body of genetic and statistical evidence,” further noting “the epidemic included multiple strains of the virus, and that it appeared simultaneously in multiple independent locations.”

Nonetheless the CDC simply denied the link, despite the reality that the EV-D68 outbreak in 2014 infected at least 538 people in 47 states, even as a study published on the CDC’s own website reveals the disease “is one of the most rarely reported serotypes, with only 26 reports throughout the 36-year study period (1970 through 2006).”

Last July, the El Paso Times revealed that 89 illegals detained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, NM tested positive for tuberculosis. Officials were initially reluctant to tell the media because of the concern that it might spread fear. Last September at Providence Memorial Hospital in El Paso, TX, five infants tested positive for the tuberculosis infection, with an additional 700 infants and 40 hospital workers potentially infected. All of them were exposed to the disease by an unnamed hospital employee. Again, most Americans are unaware the U.S. Department of Education issued guidelines for school attendance by UACs, stating that such children cannot be excluded even if they fail to provide “requisite health or immunization information required of other students,” the memo stated.  Last May, 28 people tested positive for TB at Olathe Northwest High School in Kansas.

All coincidental, or unrelated to illegal aliens? In Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, the three nations where most of last year’s border surge originated, the tuberculosis infection rate is nearly 10 times that of the United States.

In July of 2014, Former Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) wrote a letter to the CDC expressing concern about the “grave public health threats” posed by the influx of illegals, insisting that reports of illegal migrants “carrying deadly diseases…are particularly concerning.” The 30-year physician urged the agency to take immediate action to assess the risk and notify the public.

Unfortunately, the CDC is an agency with a credibility problem. Last year it bungled the handling of Ebola “index patient” Thomas Eric Duncan, resulting in two healthcare workers contracting the deadly disease. One of them was allowed to board an airliner despite calling the CDC several times to report early symptoms. This year a report compiled by 11 experts in biosafety, laboratory science and research, stated the CDC’s “laboratory safety training is inadequate” and the agency is “on the way to losing credibility.” Two incidents were highlighted. In May, avian bird flu samples were unintentionally mixed with the deadly H5N1 influenza strain and shipped to a USDA lab, and in June, dozens of employees risked exposure to anthrax because the agency did not follow proper sterilization protocols.

Thus when the CDC largely dismisses any connection between illegals and the surge of measles in 2014, (along with a 2015 pace on track to top it), one must remain skeptical, especially when the agency itself makes unprovable assumptions. “Although we aren’t sure exactly how this year’s outbreak began, we assume that someone got infected overseas, visited the Disneyland parks and spread the disease to others,” said Anne Schuchat, an assistant surgeon general and director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. That statement is hardly reassuring from the same agency that declared measles had been “eliminated” in America—defined as the absence of continuous disease transmission for 12 months or more in a specific geographic area—by 2000.

Media defenders are quick to point out that Mexico and Central American countries largely responsible for the illegal influx have higher vaccination rates than the U.S.

But as Border Patrol veteran Chris Cabrera pointed out last August, many potentially diseased illegals are “slipping through the cracks” because he and his fellow agents have been overwhelmed by the onslaught. “This problem isn’t contained in the border areas. [They] are coming in here, they’re going north, and it’s going to affect the entire country,” he warned.

A Fox News report last July brings another element to the mix. At Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, TX, doctors and nurses working there were threatened with arrest if they divulged any information about the contagion threat at that illegal refugee camp. Members of BCFS, a security force hired by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS), likened themselves to Brown Shirts, and workers themselves were stripped of cellphones and other communication devices during their shifts. Anyone found with a phone was immediately terminated. Nonetheless, workers revealed camp children had measles, scabies, chicken pox and strep throat. “They’re going to crush the system,” warned a nurse who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. “We can’t sustain this. They are overwhelming the system and I think it’s a travesty.”

Thus the obvious question arises: how many other facilities involved with illegals and dangerous diseases are operating under the same veil of secrecy and threats? Sadly in an Obama administration dedicated to an amnesty onslaught by any means necessary Americans may never learn the answer to that question. And the administration will be aided and abetted by a leftist media more than willing to label any attempt to establish causation between illegals and disease as fear mongering and/or xenophobic.

Regardless, reality intrudes. Dengue hemorrhagic fever is another disease being attributed to illegals. “The big picture here is that we are getting all these diseases brought into the United States by the ‘imported disease people’ from Latin America,” insists Dr. Lee Hieb, past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “We don’t generally test for dengue fever, because until recently we have not had hordes of people coming into the United States from areas of the world like Latin America where dengue fever is endemic,” she added.

Dengue fever, as well as the equally grim affliction known as the chikungunya virus, are spread by mosquitos. It is believed both diseases are fueled by people who became ill while traveling abroad, as well as illegals who brought them into the country on clothing, baggage, liquids, and food. In September, 120,000 cases and 60 deaths attributed to dengue fever were declared in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and the CDC warns it is only a matter of time before native mosquitos are impacted. Their “solution” for both afflictions since there are no vaccines for either? “Avoid mosquito bites,” their website advises.

In their piece on EV-D68, the Daily Caller pressed a number of government researchers, health experts and academics to provide data exonerating Obama administration officials with regard to the possible linkage between the disease and the influx of UACs. The DC noted that all of them “refused to comment, or else urged self-censorship,” because “it could spike existing public opposition” to the efforts of a pro-amnesty president and his party, as well as Republicans beholden to their Chamber of Commerce and Silicon Vally masters, who want cheap labor as much as Democrats want guaranteed votes. The website further noted Democrats could make life exceedingly difficult “for grant-dependent American scientists who discover politically damaging information.”

And once again, if such dynamics apply to EV-D68, it stands to reason they apply to the rest of the “politically inconvenient” diseases that could derail so-called comprehensive immigration reform.

As for the media, their behavior is nothing short of reprehensible. Putting aside the politicization of the issue reduced to the banal idea of right-wing nativism versus left-wing compassion, the notion that establishing the causation of any disease threatening the health and well-being of the American public would be scrupulously avoided because it might not accrue to pro-amnesty sensibilities reeks of ideological bankruptcy bordering on totalitarianism. Since when have the deaths and paralysis of children been met with a collective media shrug? Why has the CDC, the agency that should be leading the charge in this arena, been given a pass for a series of denials, best exemplified by Steve Oberste, chief of the CDC’s polio and picornavirus laboratory branch who insisted the agency was “unaware” of any UAC testing positive for EV-D68? How does “unaware” establish no link at all?

And why has there been no media pressure put on the Obama administration? It isn’t hard to figure out that the deliberate dispersal of illegals throughout the nation—a dispersal that included the policy of handing children to family members who might also be illegals—would make virtually impossible to establish causation or lack thereof, even as that dispersal has the potential for exponentially affecting more and more Americans exposed to dangerous diseases. “As the unaccompanied children continue to be transported to shelters around the country on commercial airlines and other forms of transportation, I have serious concerns that the diseases carried by these children may begin to spread too rapidly to control,” Gingrey stated in his letter to the CDC.

For the pro-amnesty proponents a potential epidemic—courtesy of diseases previously eradicated in the United States–is seemingly a reasonable price to pay in order to maintain an illegal immigration policy that puts the Border Patrol on pace to catch “an additional 39,000 unaccompanied children and about 53,000 members of families on the southern border this fiscal year,” the LA Times reports. And while that surge is smaller than the one last year, it is still “large enough to overwhelm shelters and courts.” And so it begins—all over again. When is enough enough?
Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.

 Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/arnold-ahlert/importing-a-potential-epidemic/

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

So what do the Druze really want? - Dr. Mordechai Kedar



by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav
 
The Druze in Syria are in a dangerous situation. They are torn between conflicting loyalties, are fearful of all sides, whether it is because they are not Muslims or whether it is because of their geographical situation, since they are gathered into three concentrations that can easily be surrounded and cut off. 


The decision makers in Israel have been concerned with the fate of the Druze in Syria for some time, and during the past two weeks the media have been dealing energetically with matter as a result of a few incidents, especially the attack on IDF ambulances that were bringing some wounded from Syria for treatment in Israel. In two incidents the Druze attacked those ambulances, claiming that the wounded were fighters for Jabhat al-Nusra, an organization of Syrian rebels that is a branch of al-Qaeda in Syria and threatens the Druze for being heretics according to Islam. 
Israel does not officially support Jabhat al-Nusra, and it claims that treatment is given to the wounded that are brought to the border fence for humanitarian reasons, regardless of what organization they belong to. Some of the Druze do not buy this story, and have been harshly critical for a long time about the medical treatment being given to the organization’s soldiers. It could be that Israel gives such support to the organization because it presents the greatest threat to the Asad regime, and apparently, Israel is interested in getting rid of Asad, the main ally of the Iranians in the area, which would also weaken Hizb’Allah significantly.
However, attacking ambulances that are bringing in wounded is an act that cannot be tolerated, and these two incidents have brought about the meeting this week of Druze leaders in Israel along with those in the Golan, to issue condemnations and denounce the handful of hotheads that attacked the wounded, one of whom was killed in the assault. They called on their community to act only according to laws of the state and to totally refrain from carrying out acts that are against the law and customary rules of humanitarian support in Israel. The leaders understand that the Druze community in Israel cannot wage wars that are contrary to the state’s position, because they would then be placing themselves in direct conflict with the state’s institutions.  
The Druze are also aware that medical treatment given to the wounded of Jabhat al-Nusra allows Israel to set the boundaries of activities for this organization, and to instruct it not to harm the Druze in Syria. However, this is not guaranteed, since there have already been a number of incidents when the organization has attacked Druze, in the Khader enclave on the slopes of Mount Hermon and near Idlib in northern Syria, in which incidents a few dozen Druze were killed.
Nevertheless, the establishment is listening to the concerns of the Druze and it may be that a more discreet way to treat the wounded of Jabhat al-Nusra will be found, because those who are hospitalized in Israel say openly, to the cameras, that if they meet a Druze or a Shi’ite they will kill him. It seems that receiving medical treatment in Israel does not alter the jihadists’ attitude toward infidels. What is their attitude toward the Jews? On the other hand, there are rumors that Druze roam the hospitals to photograph the hospitalized Jabhat al-Nusra fighters so that they will be able to identify them in the future and settle accounts with them.  
The Druze in Syria
 The Druze in Israel are concerned, and very rightly so, about the fate of their brothers in Syria, especially in light of the world’s silence regarding the genocide that was perpetrated against the Yazidis, whose men were murdered or forced to convert, and whose women and girls are sold in the slave market. The Druze know that if they could, the jihadists of the Islamic State would do to the Druze exactly what they do to the Yazidis. That is why the Druze cling to Asad with all their might and despite the fact that Asad’s situation is deteriorating in all battle fronts, they remain loyal to him.
They hear the voices in Israel that call for establishing a protected area in Suwayda for the Druze, to attach them to Jordan or to Israel. These voices worry the Druze leaders in Syria considerably, because they create the impression that the Druze are not loyal to the regime, or that they have become loyal to Israel. Such a depiction of the Druze might turn the rage of Asad’s soldiers’ against them on one hand, and the rebel jihadists on the other hand, because no one is a Zionist there. 
This week some of the leaders of the Syrian Druze community met in Suwayda, the capital of Druze Mountain, in the southern part of Syria near the Jordanian border, and issued the following manifesto:


"We, the sons of the Suwayda region, heads of civil and social organizations, intellectuals, academicians and religious leaders, declare that our defense depends exclusively on our Syrian identity, and that Suwayda is an integral part of Syria, our mother country. Likewise, we reject any attempt to represent us as anything other than purely Syrian and we reject any declarations that have come from the Zionist entity and their claims that they fear for the fate of the people of Suwayda. We see these declarations and claims as part of their plan to dismantle the area. We do not accept and will not permit this, and we emphasize that we have no need for anyone to defend us. We are proud of being one of the components that constitute the Syrian people, a component that tries to exemplify the highest order of citizenship. We are proud of being Syrian, and it is our only basis for security, and our first and last choice. Suwayda, 23rd of June, 2015.”
This manifesto is signed by Druze, Christian and Muslim leaders, and is published by the media. Outwardly, this document expresses the desire to cling to the Asad regime as a defense against jihadi wars, despite the dangerous proximity of these wars to the Druze areas, and despite the fact that the Asad regime is failing to defend them. In recent weeks a number of military bases have fallen into the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra in southern Syria and the army has transferred some of its heavy weaponry to the Qalamoun Mountains, abandoning the Druze to their fate. As a result of this, one of the Druze religious leaders has appealed to Druze soldiers serving in Asad’s army to defect with their arms and join their families to defend them from both the regime and the jihadists.
Until about two months ago, Hizb’Allah, Asad’s ally, had been protecting the Druze in the enclave of Khader, but they have withdrawn from the area in order to join their brothers in Qalamoun Mountains. Also, the fact that Israel has eliminated one of their commanders – Jihad Mughniyah, the son of Imad Mughniyah – along with an Iranian General last January, did not increase Hizb’Allah’s motivation to remain in the area to defend the Druze. 
All of the above appears openly in the media, but behind the scenes a great drama is being played out with the participation of Jordan and the United States, because all of the involved parties know exactly what might be the fate of the Druze when Asad falls. It is safe to assume that the manifesto is intended to camouflage the truth, which is different, to a greater or lesser extent, from what is written there, since the Druze are not sure yet that Asad will fall and perhaps they still hope that the Iranians will invade Syria in order to rescue Asad and put an end to the rebellion against him. It is also reasonable to assume that this manifesto does not express the position of the entire community, and that part of the community does not support what is written there.
The Druze in Syria are in a dangerous situation. They are torn between conflicting loyalties, are fearful of all sides, whether it is because they are not Muslims or whether it is because of their geographical situation, since they are gathered into three concentrations that can easily be surrounded and cut off. A willingness to accept support from Israel will make them vulnerable to revenge from Asad as well as the jihadists, and refusal to accept such help might leave them defenseless. They do not have unified leadership that is capable of presenting a coherent position, and it is difficult to believe what is disseminated in the media about this or that leader’s stance. 
The overriding goal of all the Druze is to survive, as they have survived for a thousand years within a hostile Islamic environment, but the question is how to survive and what steps are required to achieve this. The answers that are given in response to this question are various and contradictory, and we can only hope that the Druze’s complex situation and the division among them will not bring this wonderful community to the jihadist’s knives and its females to the Islamic State’s slave market.


 Dr. Mordechai Kedar

 Source: Written for Arutz 7

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

Posted by at No comments:

The best single article on why the Iran nuke deal is a bad one - Richard Baehr



by Richard Baehr

The Obama administration argues that the breakout time for Iran to develop a bomb, if they choose to do so, will extended from 2-3 months to about a year as a result of the current deal.  This is patently false.

The Obama administration argues that the breakout time for Iran to develop a bomb, if they choose to do so, will extended from 2-3 months to about a year as a result of the current deal.  This is patently false.  This article in the New York Times (!) today suggests that the increase in the breakout time that will result from the deal is from two months to three months, or a net gain of one month.  For this, Iran will have sanctions eliminated, and $150 billion released.  Does this sound like a fair exchange?

Alan J. Kuperman writes in “The Iran Deal’s Fatal Flaw”:
Breakout time is determined by three primary factors: the number and type of centrifuges; the enrichment of the starting material; and the amount of enriched uranium required for a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama seems to make rosy assumptions about all three.
Most important, in the event of an overt attempt by Iran to build a bomb, Mr. Obama’s argument assumes that Iran would employ only the 5,060 centrifuges that the deal would allow for uranium enrichment, not the roughly 14,000 additional centrifuges that Iran would be permitted to keep mainly for spare parts. Such an assumption is laughable. In a real-world breakout, Iran would race, not crawl, to the bomb. (snip)
…since the deal would permit Iran to keep only a small amount of enriched uranium in the gaseous form used in centrifuges, Mr. Obama assumes that a dash for the bomb would start mainly from unenriched uranium, thereby lengthening the breakout time. But the deal would appear to also permit Iran to keep large amounts of enriched uranium in solid form (as opposed to gas), which could be reconverted to gas within weeks, thus providing a substantial head-start to producing weapons-grade uranium.
Third, Mr. Obama’s argument assumes that Iran would require 59 pounds of weapons-grade uranium to make an atomic bomb. In reality, nuclear weapons can be made from much smaller amounts of uranium (as experts assume North Korea does in its rudimentary arsenal). A 1995 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council concluded that even a “low technical capability” nuclear weapon could produce an explosion with a force approaching that of the Hiroshima bomb — using just 29 pounds of weapons-grade uranium.

 Richard Baehr

 Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/the_best_single_article_on_why_the_iran_nuke_deal_is_a_bad_one.html

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

UN Report on Gaza Scores Points for Barbarism - P. David Hornik



by P. David Hornik

The report fails to mention the fact that Hamas is the one which opened fire and initiated the fighting, and it gives no weight to the fact that Israel did everything in its power to reach a ceasefire before moving on to a full-scale counterattack….


Ban Ki-moonIn the 21st century, barbarism has gained ground at the expense of civilization. Democracy has been in sharp decline. Terrorism increased by 35 percent in 2014. ISIS’s latest video is the most horrific yet.

If civilization can still prevail, it first has to be able to distinguish between civilization and barbarism. Civilization has had a notoriously hard time doing that. It signed a peace agreement with Herr Hitler and declared “peace in our time.” It may be on the verge of signing an agreement with Iran that leaves its nuclear program intact and ensures it will get—for starters—$150 billion worth of sanctions relief.

The inability to morally distinguish between Israel and its barbaric enemies is, of course, a key part of the malaise. The UN Human Rights Council’s report on last summer’s war in Gaza, released this week, is a further symptom of a disease that appears incurable.

The 47 members of the council, based in Geneva, include human rights stalwarts like Algeria, Cuba, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Not surprisingly, with such a membership, the council’s overriding purpose is to vilify Israel: 80 percent of its resolutions condemn it. As Benjamin Netanyahu noted on Tuesday, the council
has passed more resolutions against Israel than against Syria, North Korea and Iran combined. In fact, it has passed more resolutions against Israel than against all the countries of the world combined.
Yet democratic countries sit on the council, too—France, Japan, the Netherlands, the United States, and others; they participate in its votes and never threaten to leave it en masse unless it stops being a blatant Israel-defaming kangaroo court. The current “fact-finding mission” on the Gaza war was first headed by a Canadian academic, William Schabas; and now, Schabas having stepped down when it turned out he had been in the Palestinians’ pay, by U.S. jurist Mary McGowan Davis.

If this latest report is somewhat less extreme than one of its predecessors, the infamous 2009 Goldstone Report on the 2008 war in Gaza, it’s because it puts Israel on the same moral footing as Hamas—unlike in the Goldstone Report where Israel was a ruthless killer and Hamas almost irrelevant. It’s hardly comforting, of course, when Israel is portrayed—at best—as equivalent to Hamas instead of much worse.

The report says that the “commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups. In some cases, these violations may amount to war crimes.”

The report, for instance, acknowledges that before invading or bombing built-up parts of Gaza, Israel warned residents to leave (using measures like phone calls, SMS messages, leaflets, small “knock-on-the-roof” bombs, and others that an unbiased group of experts said were unique in military history). For the commission, though, the fact that not all residents left—even though they had ample time to do so—makes Israel responsible for their deaths and guilty of war crimes.

The commissions says it “suspects” that Hamas told the Gazans to stay put—thereby managing to “suspect” what is a well-documented fact.

The report is in general exquisitely cautious when it comes to judging Hamas—which it calls “armed Palestinian groups,” it being considered impolitic for some reason to use Hamas’s name. The tunnels Hamas dug from Gaza into Israel, for instance, were intended for mass-murder and kidnapping attacks on Israeli civilians. Yet the commission
cannot conclusively determine the intent of Palestinian armed groups with regard to the construction and use of these tunnels. However, the commission observes that during the period under examination, the tunnels were only used to conduct attacks directed at IDF positions in Israel in the vicinity of the Green Line, which are legitimate military targets.
An absurdity, of course, since the soldiers were there to stop the terrorists from getting further into Israel, and some of them died doing so.

The report also says that Hamas’s use of inaccurate rockets “increases suspicion that it meant to harm and terrorize Israeli civilians”—this ginger terminology being used for a terrorist organization that is responsible for the murder and injury of thousands of civilians going back to the late 1980s, and which, during last summer’s war, fired—as the report itself acknowledges—almost 5,000 rockets and 1,750 mortar bombs into Israel, very few even in the intended direction of military targets.

As Israeli military commentator Ron Ben-Yishai notes,
The report fails to mention the fact that Hamas is the one which opened fire and initiated the fighting, and it gives no weight to the fact that Israel did everything in its power to reach a ceasefire before moving on to a full-scale counterattack….
The distinction between aggressor and defender has, of course, long been buried under a mountain of Israel-slander. Beyond that matter of morally skewed rhetoric, though, Ben-Yishai points out that the report can only encourage Israel’s possible next wartime foe, Hezbollah, which has turned southern Lebanon into a massive human shield and, as the New York Times acknowledged, “moved most of its military infrastructure into the Shiite villages” there.

The report, Ben-Yishai observes, “fails to explain why an Israeli soldier has to get killed because Hamas chose to locate its launchers and tunnels in the heart of [a Gaza] neighborhood” and “serve[s] as a…warning…against what might happen to us in the international arena if a war breaks out in the north with Hezbollah or with Hezbollah and the Syrians.”

Wisely, Israel refused to cooperate with this commission; it could not get into Gaza and makes no specific charges against Israeli officers or soldiers. It’s believed, therefore, that the Palestinian Authority will not be able to make much use of the report in its efforts to get Israel charged with “war crimes” at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

The report, though, will probably be ratified by the Human Rights Council and, later, by the UN General Assembly, and increase the general atmosphere of recrimination toward Israel. It represents then, another win for barbarism, with the West again cooperating in the war against its own values.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva and author of the book Choosing Life in Israel.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/davidhornik/un-report-on-gaza-scores-points-for-barbarism/

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

The Scorpion, The Frog and The Pope - Susan Warner



by Susan Warner
  • Despite attempts by post World War II popes to reconcile with the Jews, Pope Francis has, perhaps inadvertently, taken the first steps to disassemble any progress toward that goal.
  • The Pope's declaration inspires the already hate-infested Palestinians to commit murder with a symbolic pontifical blessing.
  • It might be premature to assign the term "anti-Semitism" to Pope Francis's current "missteps." However, it does not push the envelope too far to suggest that the Pope's view of the Jews and Israel is a product of a lifetime of Catholic and Replacement Theology bias.
  • At this momentous time, the Pope's repentance would be a welcome acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist.

Pope Francis recently declared Palestine to be a state. Thus, he writes a new chapter in the divisive history between Catholics and Jews.

The history of the Catholic Church is a two-thousand year old story of anti-Judaism, conspicuous by frequent massacres, murders, forced conversions, torture, pogroms, expulsions, demonization and other unspeakable acts of violence and offense.

The fable of the Scorpion and the Frog illustrates the notion that certain acts are not merely random chance but are as predictable as a "DNA" profile.
A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?"
The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."
So they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog has just enough time to gasp "Why?"
The scorpion replies: "Because it is my nature; it is what I do...."
This year, the Catholic Church is celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Nostra aetate. Written in 1965, the document is a declaration of the relation of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions including Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews (or what the document calls "Abraham's stock").

Its purpose was to promote "unity and love among men." At the same time, it served as a tool to start the repair of what had become an insurmountable rift between Catholics and Jews. 

While the document has played a role in bridging one of the wide gaps between the two groups by releasing Jews from the burden of responsibility for the death of Jesus, it nevertheless fails to address a key issue for Jewish people -- the declaration of Israel as their historic, legitimate and legal homeland.

During the first few months after Pope Francis's March 2013 election, the Jewish community expressed hope that the Catholic Church would continue what appeared to be a warming relationship.
"Francis declared that 'since the Second Vatican Council, we have rediscovered that the Jewish People are still for us the holy root that produced Jesus.' He also stated that despite the horrors inflicted on the Jewish People by the Shoah, 'God never abandoned his covenant with Israel, and notwithstanding their terrible suffering over the centuries, the Jewish People have kept their faith. For this, we will never be sufficiently grateful to them as a Church, but also as human beings...."
Some optimistic Jewish leaders argue that, while there is a lot more work to do, the process of reconciliation has been steadily moving forward.

Current events, unfortunately, suggest a more pessimistic perspective.[1]

Israel is battling for its legitimacy and its very existence on every front, and Jews throughout the world are confronting a vigorous, revitalized and often violent resurgence of anti-Semitism.

Even as the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas call almost daily for death to the Jews, the Pope has declared terrorist and Holocaust denier, Mahmoud Abbas, "a man of peace."

In his declaration of Palestine as a recognized "state", the Pope has spurned Israel's existential security concerns in order to advance a bond with the Palestinians before both parties have agreed to even basic terms of a peace agreement.

The symbolic timing (May 13) of the Pope's ex officio declaration of a Palestinian state couldn't be more obvious or more offensive to Israel: 1. Israel's Independence Day celebrates the birth of the State in 1949; 2. Nakba Day (Catastrophe Day), the Palestinian day of mourning for the loss of their land to the State of Israel; 3.The summer celebrations of Nostra aetate, commemorating a vision of harmony.

Such a reckless affirmation is also a caustic reminder that Jewish-Catholic reconciliation work is far from complete.

Is the Catholic Church, like the scorpion, simply standing against the Jewish state because it is part of Church's DNA? Do the Pope's sympathies with the Palestinian narrative suggest the beginning of a return to the days of a Catholic Church riddled with thousands of examples of Jew-hatred?

Among the many diverse threads woven into the fabric of the Church, anti-Semitism stands at the forefront. The fabric of all of Christianity was set against the Jews from the outset.

While the timing of the Pope's announcement was shocking, it was nonetheless predictable. It is an echo of a long-held theology of the Catholic Church, which turned against its own Jewish heritage within a mere fifty years after the Apostle Paul died.[2]

The theological grandfather of contemporary Christian anti-Semitism is known as "Replacement Theology" or what is dubbed by scholars "supersessionism." This is the ancient idea that the Christian Church "replaced" God's "chosen" people.

By 135 CE, the newly emerging gentile Church had lost much of the Jewish vigor that had energized the period of the Hebrew New Testament writings.

In the generation after the Apostle Paul died, the gentile Church Fathers began penning tomes of anti-Jewish theology and commentary.[3] Early second-century writers and theologians such as Tertullian and Origen inverted the Jewishness of the Jesus story and began to demonize the Jewish people, using their very own Hebrew scriptures as a cudgel.

The thesis of "Replacement Theology," according to Dr. Jim Showers, Executive Director of Friends of Israel, "maintains that, because the Jewish people rejected Jesus as the Messiah, God has replaced or superseded ethnic Israel with the Church and punished them by rescinding all of His covenant promises."

This early narrative proclaimed, "the Church as the New Israel," and fused with the idea that "the Church is the heir of God's promises to Abraham". Thus, the Church nullified God's original, unequivocal, irrevocable and eternal promise of the land and nation to Israel in His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It was these early Church Fathers (125 - 325 CE) who first carved the "DNA" of Jew hatred in stone.

At the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, the Church put its final stamp on an anti-Jewish legacy. Among the Council's many proclamations, it designated a pagan day, Easter, to replace Passover as a way to separate itself from its Jewish roots.

At the conclusion of the Council, Constantine's summary letter to the attending Bishops stated:
"For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people... We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews... our worship follows a... more convenient course... we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews... How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded."[4]
"Replacement Theology" deliberately poisoned the ancestral roots of Christianity. The two-thousand year war against the Jewish people began there.

Despite attempts by post-World War II popes to reconcile with the Jews, Pope Francis has, perhaps inadvertently, taken the first steps to disassemble any progress toward that goal. By preemptively positing a Palestinian state, he has essentially re-ignited the ceasefire lines of this age-old conflict. The Pope's declaration inspires the already hate-infested Palestinians to commit murder with a symbolic pontifical blessing.

The New York Times reported on the occasion of Pope Francis's 2014 visit to the Holy Land:
"Pope Francis plans to give a strong show of support for a sovereign Palestinian state when he makes his first visit to the Holy Land this weekend, becoming the first pontiff to travel directly into the occupied West Bank rather than passing through Israel.
The pope's decision to fly straight to Bethlehem from Jordan would be a symbolic lift to the Palestinians at any time. But its resonance is even greater given his tremendous popularity, his focus on the downtrodden, and his timing amid the recent collapse of peace talks and the Palestine Liberation Organization's unity pact with the militant group Hamas."
On that same visit, the Pope also made a "surprise" stop at an Israeli security wall to pray and to pose for photos. "By chance," he parked himself for prayer within camera range, beneath graffiti with the slogan: "Bethlehem look like Warsaw Ghetto." Does he need to say more?

Pope Francis approaches the separation barrier near Bethlehem, May 25, 2014. (Image source: Al Jazeera video screenshot)

After nineteen centuries of Christian persecution; after a modern-day genocide upon which the Catholic world turned its back, just when the Jewish people and Israel might have looked for a ray of hope toward continued reconciliation, Pope Francis is making a pact with the devil. "Nothing new here," said the scorpion to the frog; "it is what I do."

Perhaps it is premature to assign the term "anti-Semitism" to Pope Francis's current "missteps." However, it does not push the envelope too far to suggest that the Pope's view of the Jews and Israel is a product of a lifetime of Catholic and Replacement Theology bias.

At this momentous time, the Pope's repentance would be a welcome acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist.
Susan Warner is a Distinguished Senior Fellow of Gatestone Institute and co-founder of a Christian group, Olive Tree Ministries in Wilmington, DE, USA. She has been writing and teaching about Israel and the Middle East for over 15 years. She can be reached at israelolivetree@yahoo.com.
[1] Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist, writes for Israel National News and has authored the book, "The Vatican Against Israel: J'accuse".
[2] For those who are interested in exploring some of these historical issues in depth, there is an interesting and informative essay about the relationship between the Jews and the early church by John J. Parsons. Parsons has compiled a worthwhile, not too lengthy, discussion of Replacement Theology, anti-Semitism and other related issues.
[3] Tertullian (circa 135CE) and Origen (circa 185CE) were two of the earliest theologians against the Jews. All of their extant writings are available online. Tertullian's commentaries are entitled Adversus Judaeos (Against the Jews). Comments on Origen here.
[4] Letter of Constantine to the churches after the Council of Nicaea (325AD).
Susan Warner

 Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6034/pope-francis-jews-israel

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