Tuesday, October 29, 2013

How did we get to the point of no return with Iran?

  • Obama has talked us past the point o no return with Iran. Its too late. Now we live with an Iranian bomb they can make in 2 weeks. Hope Israel lives. We lost 6 million 60 years ago. Now Obama, who promised Iran would never get a bomb, is as trustworthy on this as his false promises about obamacare. This lie though has nightmarish consequences.
    Commentary Magazine
    Iran Passes the Point of Nuclear No Return
    Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 10.29.2013 - 4:00 PM

    Good news comes from Vienna today. Or at least that’s what we’re supposed to think. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency met with representatives of Iran sent by its new President Hassan Rouhani, and the result was a “very productive meeting” according to a joint statement issued by the two parties. In contrast to their usual contempt for the IAEA, the Iranians made “constructive” noises about resuming the nuclear inspections they have been thwarting for years even though no details about what their new proposals might be were revealed. Though a slender reed upon which to base a policy of faith in Iran’s good intentions, it will likely strengthen the resolve of the United States to push ahead with the latest round of the P5+1 talks that will resume next week. Indeed, in defending the decision to allow the U.S. to be drawn into another lengthy negotiation with Iran, Secretary of State John Kerry said in a speech to a dinner for the Ploughshares Fund that he had no patience for those warning about the dangers of such a policy. As the Times of Israel reports:

    “Some have suggested that somehow there’s something wrong with even putting that to the test,” the secretary of state continued. “I suggest that the idea that the United States of America as a responsible nation to all of humankind would not explore that possibility would be the height of irresponsibility and dangerous in itself, and we will not succumb to those fear tactics and forces that suggest otherwise.”

    But lost amid the enthusiasm for diplomacy was yet another troubling statement that ought to chill those hopes for a quick resolution of the nuclear dispute with Iran. Also speaking yesterday in Washington, Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the IAEA, said that Iran has, “in a certain way,” already reached the point of no return in its nuclear program. Heinonen confirmed the report released last week by the Institute for Science and International Security that said Iran could enrich enough weapons-grade uranium for a single bomb in about a month. That finding renders moot most of what is being discussed by Western diplomats with the Iranians. If the Iranians have reduced the “breakout time” needed to convert their vast stockpile of low-enriched uranium into nuclear fuel, then even if Tehran agreed to proposals about limiting their enrichment capacity, their path to a weapon is clear. If this is true, the administration’s arguments against tightening sanctions on Iran must be seen as a sign that it is, despite Kerry’s protestations that “no deal is better than a bad deal,” determined to reach an agreement with the ayatollahs that will not remove the threat of an Iranian bomb.

    Throughout the debate about the nuclear threat from Iran, we have been assured by the administration that any danger of the Islamist regime cheating on a deal in order to procure a weapon that they had theoretically renounced was slim because of the lengthy “breakout” period that would be needed before they could complete the construction of a weapon. This is especially crucial since the terms of a proposed agreement seem to center on limiting the Iranians to uranium enrichment below the 20 percent that is required for a bomb. Should they break their word, the U.S. has believed that it would take so long for them to amass the required uranium that it would surely be discovered in the meantime. But if the Iranians only need two weeks to do the trick, those calculations go right out the window.

    Given the vast number of centrifuges already enriching uranium in their facilities, this calculus may mean that anything short of Iran’s destruction of their nuclear plants and the export of all of their stockpile would not stop them from building a bomb. But since the Iranians have already stated that their “red line” in the talks is protection of their “right” to enrich and a refusal to give up any of their uranium, it’s difficult to understand what Kerry is talking about when he speaks so enthusiastically about the talks and makes veiled references to Israeli fear-mongering about Iran.

    It also means that Iran’s willingness to talk about talking further about letting the IAEA monitor some of its facilities tells us nothing about their behavior or their intentions.

    Even more important, this means that Congress should ignore administration pleading not to pass new sanctions against Iran. As even former Obama administration staffer Dennis Ross wrote today in a Los Angeles Times op-ed with Eric Edelman and Michael Makovsky, if the U.S. is really serious about stopping Iran via diplomacy rather than force, it must, among other things:

    Intensify sanctions and incentivize other countries to do the same, issue more forceful and credible statements that all options are on the table, initiate new military deployments and make clear the support for Israeli military action if conducted.

    The time for eyewash from the administration about the “window of diplomacy” with Iran is over. Having wasted five years on feckless engagement and dead-end diplomacy, the recent information about Iran’s breakout capacity may mean it is already too late to stop them by means short of force. But if the president and Kerry allow themselves to be sucked into another Iranian attempt to run out the clock on nuclear talks, no one should be deceived as to the meaning of such a decision or the potentially lethal consequences for Israel, the Arab nations of the Middle East (that are just as worried about the Iranian threat as the Israelis), and the entire world.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Arabs/Israel vs Obama

Posted: 24 Oct 2013 08:35 AM PDT
(Paul Mirengoff)
President Obama and John Kerry finally have enabled Israel and key Arab states to reach accord. Both sides agree that current U.S. efforts to negotiate a deal with Iran over it nuclear program are dismaying. The Washington Post reports:
The Obama administration on Wednesday acknowledged a widening gulf with key Middle Eastern allies over nuclear talks with Iran, as Israeli and Persian Gulf Arab leaders pressed for drastic cuts to Iran’s atomic infrastructure that Tehran has insisted it will never accept.
The differences came into stark relief as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to lecture Secretary of State John F. Kerry at a joint news conference, warning against a “bad deal” that would allow Iran to retain any capability to make enriched uranium. . . .
Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf monarchies have joined Israelis in expressing growing dismay over U.S. suggestions that Iran could be allowed to retain a limited capability to enrich uranium as part of a comprehensive agreement ending the decade-old nuclear dispute.
The underlying reason for the Arab-Israeli consensus against the Obama-Kerry approach is straightforward — American interests do not align with the interests of Israel and the Arabs. The overriding interest of Israel and the Gulf Arabs (a life-and-death interest in Israel’s case) is preventing Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. The overriding interest of Obama and Kerry is “conflict resolution” — i.e., producing an agreement.
To be sure, Obama and Kerry would prefer that Iran not obtain nuclear weapons, just as Jimmy Carter preferred that North Korea not obtain them. But Iranian nukes would not pose a direct threat to the U.S., as they would to Israel and others in the Middle East.
Accordingly, while Israel and the Gulf Arabs need a failproof deal — one that effectively guarantees a non-nuclear Iran — the U.S. needs only a deal that it can portray as preventing Iran from getting nukes.
Iran has an overriding interest in being able to get nukes, which means that the deal Israel and the Arabs want isn’t available. Thus, the Obama-Kerry can satisfy their craving for a deal only by negotiating one that leaves Iran able to develop nukes.
The deal Obama-Kerry are pushing would do so. It would leave Iran free to enrich uranium, supposedly for non-nuclear purposes only. It would not require, as a condition for lifting sanctions, the complete dismantling of Iran’s uranium enrichment program.
Iran, therefore, would still be able to produce a bomb using the enriched uranium that purportedly would be used only for non-nuclear purposes.
The administration can’t this. Instead, its argument is that restrictions contained in an agreement would force Iran to operate clandestinely if it wanted a bomb. This, in turn, would stretch out the time needed to produce one(assuming, I take it, that Iran didn’t just renounce the deal and its restrictions).
Current estimates are that Iran could build a bomb in less than six weeks using equipment and know-how it already possesses. Independent nuclear experts say that, operating in secret to circumvent restrictions in an agreement, would extend this period to three to six months (or conceivably more).
Thus, Obama and Kerry apparently are willing to lift crippling economic sanctions in exchange for increasing the amount of time it would take Iran to develop nuclear weapons from a month-and-half to as little as three months. Even Neville Chamberlain might be reluctant to bite on that one.
Regime change in Iran provides the long-term solution to the threat Iran poses to Israel and Arab states. It is also the way out for the oppressed people of Iran. Sanctions may well help produce regime change, which of course is why Iran is now desperate for a deal that will see them lifted.
Given this reality, it would be all the more unconscionable to lift sanctions in exchange for delaying Iran’s ability to produce nukes by a few months.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

The way to stop Iran

Sheldon Adelson: Nuke Iran's Desert as Warning, Then Nuke Tehran
Wednesday, 23 Oct 2013 04:01 PM
By Melissa Clyne

 harmless warning shot to the desert — in the form of a nuclear missile — is the United States' only hope of persuading Iran to halt its nuclear program, says billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson.

If that doesn't work, he said, another missile should be sent to annihilate Tehran.

During a panel discussion Tuesday at Yeshiva University entitled "Will Jews Exist? Iran, Assimilation and the Threat to Israel and Jewish Survival," Adelson, a staunch conservative and supporter of Israel, said there is no negotiating with Iran. The country needs to know the United States has a zero-tolerance policy.

Currently, he said, the United States is showing weakness in its ongoing diplomatic efforts concerning economic sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach hosted the panel, which included Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens and Yeshiva University President Richard Joel. Adelson’s remarks elicited applause from the audience.

Adelson advised the United States to be clear with Iran about what will happen if the Iranians stay on their current course:

"We mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with nuclear development."

If Iran stops its nuclear development program, the United States could guarantee the country would be permitted to have a nuclear power plant for energy purposes, he said.

Until then, Adelson said, the United States' diplomatic negotiations are nothing but a "game of chicken" tantamount to trying to negotiate a peace treaty with the Palestinians.

Editor's Note: Iran Will Have Nuclear Weapon By 2014 — Watch Urgent Briefing Now!

Forbes lists Adelson, 80, as the world’s 15th-richest person, with a net worth of $28.5 billion.

The largest donor to the Republican party, Adelson is chairman and CEO of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation. His numerous holdings include an Israeli daily newspaper

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/Sheldon-Adelson-nuke-Iran-warning/2013/10/23/id/532711?

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Ultra Orthodox singers

Ultra-Orthodox singers defy stereotypes in Israel

Associated Press

In this photo taken Oct. 22, 2013, Ultra-Orthodox Jewish singers Arie Gat, right, and his brother Gil, perform as they participate in an Israeli tv show in Neve Ilan, Jerusalem. For most Israelis, the common perception of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish minority is that of an insulated, segregated society devoted to studying ancient biblical texts and rejecting the ills of secular life. But the pair of devout, soft-spoken brothers in skullcaps and sidecurls are now breaking down some stereotypes by emerging as the most unlikely of media darlings _ reality rock stars. (AP Photo/Dan Balilty)
View gallery
  • .
JERUSALEM (AP) — For most Israelis, the common perception of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish minority is that of an insulated, segregated society devoted to studying ancient biblical texts and rejecting the ills of secular life.
But a pair of devout, soft-spoken brothers in skullcaps and sidecurls are now breaking down some stereotypes by emerging as the most unlikely of media darlings — reality rock stars.
Arie and Gil Gat are Israel's latest national sweethearts after dominating the audition stage of Israel's top-rated reality talent show, "Rising Star," drawing tens of thousands of votes and rave reviews from secular fans.
By day, the duo pray only with men in their synagogues. By night, women give them standing ovations for harmonic renditions of classic hits by The Eagles and Simon and Garfunkel.
"The power of music is above everything," said Arie Gat, 48, who lives in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of Beit Shemesh, near Jerusalem. "I'm not a man of lights, flashes and sparkles. I am ready to stand — I say that in the spiritual sense — with what I have, without external outfits. There is no need for that. And I believe that if it's good it will sell and if not then not."
So far, they've been a hit. Appearing in traditional ultra-Orthodox garb, including long beards and long black overcoats, with a guitar hanging gently across their chests, they've swept the votes of the show's four judges while raking in more than 80 percent of the interactive fan votes for performing "Hotel California" and "The Sound of Silence."
"Think about how many people in the world of entrainment, started with a weird look and became the biggest stars," said Tzvika Hadar, one of the show's judges. "These are not people with agents, and a story, and someone who pushed them, and photographed them for a photo-book, and you know what, even caused some provocation. You are taking people from the periphery, from their lives, their surroundings, their beliefs and they come and sing."
"Rising Star" claims to be the first program to feature real-time voting by viewers through a mobile app that is integrated into the show — familiar to anyone who has strummed away on video games like "Guitar Hero." The format, which is being adopted worldwide, has performers on a stage behind a screen that's lifted if 70 percent of viewers running the app vote for them. The studio audience of about 1,000 people wildly cheered as the screen rose during Tuesday night's performance.
Success on the show indicates wide support from an audience that includes few ultra-Orthodox Jews, who typically shun television. Neither brother owns a TV.
Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who make up about 10 percent of Israel's population of 8 million, have at times become aggressive in their efforts to impose their norms in public spaces. Most reject modern media and technology, and they are largely absent from the melting pots of the military and the secular workplace. Instead, they tend to stay in their cloistered communities and maintain a simple, pious way of life that has been adhered to over centuries.
The issue also has seeped into music. Religious soldiers have walked out of military events in which women were singing — which extremely devout Jews believe is contrary to Jewish law.
However, Arie Gat said there was no prohibition preventing him and his brother from performing before women, saying it is all right for women to cheer for them but not to dance.
"We checked out the whole issue of participating in the show in Jewish law," he said. "It's not like we jumped into rumbling waters without checking the temperature. ... From the perspective of Jewish law, there's no problem with what we are doing."
Still, neither of the brothers has informed any of their six children what they are doing. They say few friends or neighbors are aware.
The brothers perform regularly in the streets of Jerusalem, and claim to make their living from it. They have developed a small following and were recruited to the show after producers heard about their act.
The Gat brothers grew up secular in the southern city of Eilat, where they developed their love for modern music. Before becoming religious 16 years ago, Arie learned to play the guitar and later became a professional drummer. Gil, 37, spent some time in New York playing gigs at jazz clubs and blues bars.
Israeli reality shows are no strangers to minorities. Arabs, Ethiopians immigrants, converts to Judaism and newly secular people who have abandoned religion have all won competitions, in part because of emotional stories that have touched the public. Now, the Gat brothers have brought the ultra-Orthodox in with their passion as well.
"There's much love," said Gil Gat. "Music brings down all barriers between secular people, religious people. There is this kind of love."

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Terrorist Hamas won't allow peace

Even Weakened Hamas Retains Peace Veto

It’s open season on mocking Hamas lately. Israel’s discovery of a tunnel the terrorist movement had dug along the border is widely seen as an example of the impotence of a group that seems to be running out of credibility as fast as they are running out of cash. The millions of foreign aid money expended as well as the concrete intended for civilian use employed in building a structure aimed at executing a terrorist attack across the Israeli border is a symbol of the group’s priorities. But the fact that Israel’s military reportedly had been aware of the project and let Hamas go ahead and finish it before exposing the scheme makes it look as if there’s no doubt about which side of the struggle has the upper hand. Combine that with the fact that Hamas is still reeling from the fall from power of their Muslim Brotherhood allies in Egypt and the closing of the border and smuggling tunnels that linked Gaza to the Sinai and there’s little question that the Islamists are in genuine trouble.
So it’s little wonder that Hamas chose this weekend to make a big deal out of the anniversary of their last victory over Israel: the ransoming of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit with the release of more than a thousand Arab terrorists. Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh spoke yesterday to remind Palestinians of this feat and to speak of the latest surge in violence against Jews in the West Bank as evidence that his movement is by no means as isolated as its critics believe. As beleaguered as they may be, the Islamists clearly seem to think they are just one kidnapping of an Israeli away from being back in the catbird seat in Palestinian politics. But whether they are able pull such a crime off in the near future or not, those discounting Hamas’ impact on the future of Israeli-Arab coexistence need to take a deep breath. The pressure being exerted on it in the West Bank by Fatah security cooperation with Israel is a real blow to the Islamists and their cash shortfall is harming their ability to keep a lid on their Gaza stronghold. But anyone who thinks this gives Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas the leeway he needs to cut any sort of a peace deal with Israel in the talks currently being conducted under the aegis of the United States is forgetting the realities of Palestinian politics.
Most observers assume the negotiations going on in private between Israel and the PA are stalled. Indeed, given the Palestinians’ stated unwillingness to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn, it is hard to imagine how there could be hope for an accord that would truly end the conflict. But that has not stopped the Obama administration to continue to push the talks. Nor has it stopped those groups seeking to promote more pressure on Israel to make concessions in the vain hope that the PA will ever make peace on any terms that would allow Israel to survive as a Jewish state.
That’s why Hamas’ efforts to remain relevant should not be ignored or dismissed as a last gasp for a group that is struggling to hold onto power. Though Hamas is in serious trouble, Abbas knows all too well that the one way to revive its fortunes is for him to make a genuine effort to make peace with Israel. While Israelis and Westerners would hope that the people of the West Bank and even many in Gaza would prefer peace to another generation or two of conflict, Abbas knows that the legitimacy of his Fatah Party rests on bolstering its reputation as furthering “resistance” against the Jewish presence in the land, not cooperating with Israel. That’s why his official media continues to foment hatred of Israel and honors terrorists in a manner that is not that much than that of Hamas. He is also aware that for all of its troubles, another coup like a kidnapping would once again raise Hamas’ stock among Palestinians.
Until a sea change in Palestinian culture occurs that would enable a Palestinian leader to make peace, Israel will remain powerless, no matter what it gives up, to change this equation.
The bottom line is that for all of the ridicule now being heaped on Hamas’ boasting; it retains a veto over peace. That means even if Abbas and Fatah were to transcend their origins in terrorism, something that highly unlikely, the Islamist tyrants of Gaza are still capable of overturning any movement toward a solution. That’s why Israel would do well to ignore any American pressure to make concessions on borders, Jerusalem or refugees that would be pocketed by Abbas but never reciprocated. Nor, given the recent developments in the P5+1 negotiations, should the Israelis assume that they could trade a Palestinian state for an American guarantee against a nuclear Iran. So long as Hamas remains in power in Gaza, no matter how bankrupt or precarious they might be, they are the guarantee that peace is not in the offing.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Obama betrays all of us with Iran

Obama's continuing betrayal of all that's good
Previously I've shown how Obama is so twisted he undermines pro western pro Israel forces and supports the Muslim brotherhood terrorists in the Arab's largest country Egypt. Now and much worse, after promising over and over that Iran will not get nuclear arms, and "talking" with them to try and stop them the first 18 months of his administration, he's at it again, fooled by them again, weakening or removing sanctions and letting them off the hook on bankruptcy as they continue to move closer and closer. Obama's not an idiot. he knows exactly what he is doing. betraying all of us.

Todays World Jewish digest
Perhaps sensing an opportunity in the West's newly conciliatory stance on Iran's nuclear program, prominent politicians in the Islamic republic are demanding a total end to Western sanctions.

According to media reports published on Sunday, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, one of Iran's most powerful parliamentarians, publicly stated that "Only the removal of all sanctions can be a sign of a practical step," toward an agreement with the great powers. "Otherwise," he continued, "we cannot be hopeful about the results of the talks."

Boroujerdi's statement indicates an escalation in Iranian demands, which have previously concentrated on incremental steps that would provide short-term economic relief from severe Western sanctions.

Obama Considers Giving Iran Access to Billions in Frozen Assets
Friday, 18 Oct 2013 04:18 PM

The Obama administration is weighing whether to offer Iran the chance to recoup billions of dollars in frozen overseas assets if it takes steps to scale back its nuclear program, U.S. officials and congressional aides said Friday. The proposal would face a skeptical Congress determined to make the end of Tehran's uranium enrichment activity the condition for any sanctions relief.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Egypt and the USA: Obama supports terrorists over pro Western forces again

Egypt and the USA: Obama supports terrorists over pro Western forces again A quick history of Egypt. 1250 BCE God frees Israel from Egyptian bondage 1967 Abdul Nassar threatens to drown Israel in the sea. Israel wins 67 war. Sadat takes over, fights 73 war with Israel and loses, goes to Jerusalem and makes peace Sadat killed by Moslem Brotherhood Mubarak takes over and quashes Moslem Brotherhood for all his years 2008 Obama wins election, first foreign speech is in Cairo, invited illegal Moslem Brotherhood to come 2011 Mubarak overthrown by Moslem Brotherhood with Obama’s help, Moslem Brotherhood wins rigged “election”, Obama sends billions in domestic and MILITARY aid to them. 2013 Moslem Brotherhood overthrown, declared illegal, pro western and pro Israel military Obama mad October 10, 2013 Obama cuts off aid to pro western, pro Israel government. Israel, already feeling betrayed by Obama’s ineptness regarding Syria and back to “talking to Iran”, is frightened. What I don’t get is, latest AP poll has Obama at 37%. There are still 37% of Americans who don’t realize we have a pro terrorist as president?

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

There never was Palestinian nation or people

No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.”5
Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:
We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds. 6
In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country as Palestine! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.” 7 The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations echoed this view in a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947, which said Palestine was part of the Province of Syria and the Arabs of Palestine did not comprise a separate political entity. A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.” 8