Even in the most chimerical of worlds, 'not a framework deal, but rather deception'

..."The first time I read the American fact sheet it looked amazing and fantastic, too good to be true. I could hardly believe my eyes. For a moment, I thought Obama was a magician who could walk on water. I told myself that if Khamenei agreed to that outline, to things that for years he vowed and preached he would not agree to do, than all our diligent, systematic monitoring of Iran's internal discourse was of no consequence, because it could change in an instant. "But then at the end of the day, it turned out that the fantastic achievement was nothing but a fata morgana. A ploy that didn't last even 36 hours," he said.

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
09 April '15..

While U.S. President Barack Obama is engaged in a "world war" with Congress over the framework nuclear deal with Iran and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has taken a clear stand on the matter, one of the foremost experts on Iran, Col. (ret.) Yigal Carmon, provides a fresh perspective and some new facts, which may send this hot potato rolling in new directions.

"The U.S. and Iran have, in fact, not reached any nuclear agreement," said Carmon, the founder and president of the prestigious Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

"The joint statement in Lausanne, which the Iranians defined as a press release, was nothing but a smokescreen meant to disguise difficult, ongoing disagreements between the parties," Carmon, who served as counterterrorism adviser to prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin, and who has been following Arab politics and Middle East media closely for years, asserted.

Carmon, who along with MEMRI's experts on Iran is currently in the institute's offices in Washington, believes the "fact sheet" released by the White House and the U.S. State Department, detailing the alleged deal with Iran, was "a ploy of incredible deception, meant to prevent Congress from imposing immediate, crippling sanctions on the Iranians."

He recommends Netanyahu change his approach, and inform Obama that since this is clearly a ruse, and that there are no understandings with Iran, let alone a deal, Israel expects and hopes Congress will continue to pursue and intensify its sanctions on Iran.

***

Carmon has been closely following the nuclear negotiations between the West and Iran for years, and describes a scenario that is vastly different than the one he says was "staged" in Lausanne, first by the heads of the Iranian delegation to the talks, and later by the State Department and Obama.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "has made it clear, time and again over the past few months and contrary to American statements, that this is not a two-stage negotiation, and that there would be no interim agreement at the end of March, to be followed by a final agreement at the end of June," Carmon explained.

"It was, apparently, only after Obama informed the Iranians that Congress would exacerbate the sanctions if the negotiations reach their deadline with no result that Khamenei agreed to a wary, minimal, and limited move, providing Obama with a show of sorts."

Q: A show?

"Yes. The Americans called the Lausanne statement 'a joint statement,' but for the Iranians it was no more than 'a press release.' If you read the Lausanne statement word for word, you see it amounts to no agreement. The most far-reaching statement it makes mentions 'solutions for key parameters for the final deal.' The wording is vague and nonbinding, and can be interpreted either way." Binding agreements are left for the future, whenever the final solution is drafted.

Q: But the White House issued a very detailed fact sheet about the agreement reached with the Iranians, a follow-up on what you call "vague and nonbinding" language.

"That document was born when Obama understood that the Lausanne statement was too weak to go with to Congress, to block new, immediate, crippling sanctions," Carmon explained.

"The first time I read the American fact sheet it looked amazing and fantastic, too good to be true. I could hardly believe my eyes. For a moment, I thought Obama was a magician who could walk on water. I told myself that if Khamenei agreed to that outline, to things that for years he vowed and preached he would not agree to do, than all our diligent, systematic monitoring of Iran's internal discourse was of no consequence, because it could change in an instant.

"But then at the end of the day, it turned out that the fantastic achievement was nothing but a fata morgana. A ploy that didn't last even 36 hours," he said.

"When the American fact sheet was first brought to the attention of the Iranian foreign minister he said it was a media spin," Carmon continued. "Later on he and his deputy bluntly challenged [U.S. Secretary of State] John Kerry by saying the fact sheet was false.

"The Iranians ended up releasing their own, very detailed fact sheet, indicating that there are substantial gaps between the two documents. This means there are no agreements, or anything close to agreements."

If you are under threat from a non-Israeli force, forget about it.

...For these campaigners, Palestinians are, in essence, political props, bit-part players in Western activists’ own narcissistic desire to find one evil entity that they can pin every global problem on. The driving force here isn’t concern for Palestinians — it’s the need of increasingly rootless, ideas-lite, post-Cold War leftists to find one allegedly black-and-white morality play in which they can be the good guys.

...These guys should seriously consider
a name change: how about
‘Solidarity For Some Palestinians’?

Brendan O'Neill..
jewishnews.co.uk..
11 April '15..

If there were an award for double standards, for getting crazily angry about some people’s behaviour while turning a blind eye to other people’s behaviour, anti-Israel activists would win it every year.

These are people who take to the streets to march and holler whenever an Israeli warplane leaves its hangar, yet who say next to nothing about the militarism of France, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and too many other states to mention.

They bang on endlessly about Israel being an apartheid state, yet through BDS they have created a system of cultural apartheid. In their eyes, culture created by us, or by China, or by Zimbabwe, is fine, but culture produced by them, those nasty Israelis, must be hounded out of theatres and galleries lest it infect us all with its contagious Zionism.

These are activists who cry “Censorship!” when a conference of theirs is pulled, as happened at Southampton University recently. Yet they spend the rest of their time agitating for the No Platforming of Israeli representatives on campus and for the shutting down of pro-Israel university societies. “Free speech! (For nice people like me, not for rotters like you)” — that’s their fantastically hypocritical motto.

And now we can see that their double standards extend even to the people they claim to care for: the Palestinians.

Even here, even on the question of Palestinian suffering, anti-Israel activists only care some of the time. If you’re a Palestinian whose life is made harder by Israeli forces, they’ll share pictures of you, march in the streets for you, write tear-drenched tweets about you. But if you’re a Palestinian under threat from a non-Israeli force, forget about it. You’re on your own.

Actually, There is No "Better Deal" with Iran

...If inspections, sanctions, sabotage and political isolation ever had a chance to stop Iran from getting the bomb, that certainly is no longer the case. It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop a determined state, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, from building a nuclear bomb. It remains to be seen whether Israel has elected the leader to live up to this historic challenge.

Efraim Inbar..
MEF/BESA Center Perspectives..
09 April '15..

The debate over the pros and cons of the Iran nuclear framework agreement negotiated between the P-5+1 and Iran at Lausanne (April 2, 2015) is simply irrelevant. The search for truth in the conflicting versions and details of the deal coming out of Washington and Tehran is of no consequence. Moreover, the steps suggested by Israel and other critics to improve the efficacy of the deal (by more stringent inspections and so on) will result in little change. The deal is basically dangerous in nature, and needs to be rejected outright.

The deal permits Iran to preserve stockpiles of enriched uranium, to continue to enrich uranium, and to maintain illegally built facilities at Fordow and Arak. Even in the absence of a signed full agreement, the US and its negotiating partners have already awarded legitimacy to Iran's nuclear threshold status. In all likelihood, the United States, quite desperate to secure an agreement, will make additional concessions in order to have a signed formal deal – which will not be worth the paper on which it is written.

This outcome has been a foregone conclusion since November 2013, when the US agreed to the "Joint Plan of Action" on Iran's nuclear program. Already back then, the US decided not to insist on the goal of rolling back the Iranian nuclear program, ignoring several UN Security Council resolutions demanding no uranium enrichment. Washington also disregarded the security concerns of its allies in the Middle East (primarily Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt – who better understand the regional realities).

Middle Easterners clearly discern an Iranian diplomatic victory in this accord, which is no surprise. Iranians are much more adept at negotiating than Americans. Iran is getting more or less what it wanted: The capability to produce enriched uranium and to research weapon design; an agreement to keep its missile program intact; and no linkages to Iranian behavior in the region. The deal is a prelude to nuclear breakout and Iranian regional hegemony.

Indeed, with no attempt to roll back the Iranian nuclear program, as was done in Libya, we are progressing toward the North Korean model. Those two are the only options in dealing with nuclear programs of determined states such as Iran. Iran's nuclear program benefited in many ways from assistance that originated in Pakistan and in North Korea (both are nuclear proliferators despite American opposition). Compare the recent statements by President Obama to the speeches of President Clinton justifying the agreement with North Korea (October 1994). Their similarities are amazing; an indication of the incredible capacity of great powers for self-delusion.

Detailed Shortcomings? Flimsy Assurances? A Bad Nuclear Deal? Never Mind!

...Supporters of the administration understand that their only real talking point is one that claims that even a weak deal is better than none at all. That is not a compelling argument about any issue and certainly not one that involves giving a vicious, aggressive anti-Semitic regime the status of a threshold nuclear power.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
08 April '15..

Rather than merely inveigh against the seeming betrayal of the U.S.-Israel alliance represented by President Obama’s pursuit of détente with Iran, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government is attempting to reason with the administration. It has issued a detailed list of shortcomings with the as-yet-unwritten deal with Tehran that illustrate just how flimsy are the assurances about the nuclear threat the administration has been giving the nation. The president has dismissed some of them but for the most part the White House has ignored, at least in public, the specific problems with the pact. But the New York Times editorial page, which continues to serve as the president’s chief cheerleader, did deign to notice the Israeli list today. And while the editors of the Times acknowledged that all of the Israeli points were troubling, their response was straight out of a classic Saturday Night Live comedy routine: Never mind. While this is quite a commentary on the poor reasoning of the deal’s chief advocates, it also illustrates that their boasts about the agreement’s worth are as hollow as the president’s assurances that it will stop Iran from getting a bomb.

Though the Times terms the deal “surprisingly comprehensive,” the most interesting thing about the editorial is that it can’t dismiss the list of problems that Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz has produced. On each point, even the Times, which has been consistently and scathingly critical of the Netanyahu government on Iran as well as every other possible issue, admits the Israelis generally have a good argument.

The Times admits that eliminating Iran’s centrifuges, closing down the impregnable mountainside facility at Fordow, and mandating inspections anytime and anywhere would be preferable to what President Obama has accepted.

On other points, the Times notes Israel’s objections, but disingenuously claims that the agreement satisfies them. One such is the question of the stockpile of enriched uranium that, contrary to the expectations of even critics of the administration’s negotiating strategy, will not be shipped out of Iran and will instead remain under the regime’s control. The Times says that this stockpile, like the continued operation of the thousands of centrifuges that will continue to operate, means that “Iran can’t enrich material for nuclear weapons.” But that is not true since the stockpile can be easily and quickly reconverted to use for nuclear fuel. So, too, can any centrifuges that are being reconfigured for other uses.

Elsewhere, the Times merely engages in wishful thinking. That is especially true in its reaction to the Israelis pointing out that Iran has continued to stonewall the International Atomic Energy Agency on its past research on military use of nuclear material. The fact that the deal does not require Iran to tell the truth about this is a fatal flaw since without knowing how much progress they’ve made, all estimates about the time needed for a nuclear “breakout” are uninformed guesses. To this point, the Times merely breezily pretends that the written final version of the agreement will ensure that Iran does open up on this issue.

That is nonsense, since Iran has already learned that when faced with a refusal in a negotiation, the Obama administration always folds. And that is the entire point of both the editorial and the cogent criticisms that have been made about the deal.

Naively wishing to give caprice a chance

...Perhaps the best way to divine where things are headed is simply to put aside for the moment all the minutiae you might have read about spinning centrifuges and enriched uranium, and consider just one, simple question: can the ayatollahs be trusted to keep their word? Well, if their behavior over the past two decades is any indication, the answer is clearly "no."

Michael Freund..
Pundicity/JPost..
09 April '15..

Precisely a week ago, Barack Obama stood in the Rose Garden at the White House and triumphantly declared that a nuclear deal had been reached with Iran.

But as troubling details about the agreement continue to emerge, even as Tehran and Washington offer sharply differing accounts of what was agreed upon, the public is still scratching its collective head and wondering what it all means.

Perhaps the best way to divine where things are headed is simply to put aside for the moment all the minutiae you might have read about spinning centrifuges and enriched uranium, and consider just one, simple question: can the ayatollahs be trusted to keep their word? Well, if their behavior over the past two decades is any indication, the answer is clearly "no."

After all, Tehran's nuclear program came to light in 2002 only after an Iranian exile group held a press conference and disseminated photographs and data regarding the country's covert nuclear installations. It turned out that Iran had been working in secret for 18 years (!) on its nuclear program, which it had concealed from the international community and repeatedly lied about.

Then, in September 2012, the Iranian regime actually admitted that it had intentionally deceived the West about the nature and extent of its atomic program. In an interview published in the London-based daily Al-Hayat, Iranian Vice President Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani, who was also the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), said, "Sometimes we pretended to be weaker than we really were, and sometimes we showed strength that was not really in our hands." Abbasi-Davani then added that, "We sometimes gave false information to protect our nuclear sites and our interests. This inevitably misled other intelligence agencies."

In light of Tehran's chronic trouble telling the truth, does it really seem sensible to risk the future of Israel and Western civilization on the dim hope that this time Iran will at last be forthright and honest? Worse yet is the fact that this marks the second time in nearly two decades that the United States has reached a dubious deal with a devious dictatorship about nuclear development, with the previous attempt having been made with North Korea.

And if the outcome of that protracted effort is any indication, there is little reason to take comfort in Obama's soothing assurances that Iran will not be permitted to get the bomb.

For in an eerily similar situation, the US and North Korea signed an "Agreed Framework" on October 12, 1994, under which President Bill Clinton promised the Stalinist regime economic cooperation and aid in exchange for a halt to its nuclear program. Needless to say, the North Koreans proceeded to laugh all the way to the bank, as they received various benefits while continuing to pursue nuclear weapons covertly.

Surprise! Iran Announces Film to Celebrate Israel’s Coming Destruction

...Importantly, the article describing the film was published after agreement on a nuclear framework between the P5+1 and Iran. Let’s hope that with their willful naivete, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry don’t get credit for small but important bit roles.

Michael Rubin..
Commentary Magazine..
08 April '15..

President Barack Obama has dismissed arguments that U.S. negotiators should demand that Iran recognize Israel and Israel’s right to exist as part of any final agreement. To do so would be too difficult, the president argues, and not relevant to the narrow goal at hand which is simply to strike an accord to constrain Iran’s nuclear breakout ability for a decade or so. Perhaps no statement better illustrates the moral and cultural equivalence that infuses President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.

It is akin to saying North Korea seeks South Korea’s destruction and it would be too complicated to impede Pyongyang’s murderous intent. Russian President Vladimir Putin has expansionist intent? Well, let’s not let his imperialist ambitions toward the Baltics, Poland, and the rest of Ukraine get in the way of our diplomacy.

A Truer Understanding of When Relations with Europe will Improve

...If Europe is on Israel’s case, it is not because of human rights or because of democracy. It is because of the geopolitical value of the Arab world and of the electoral weight of European Muslims. Simply put, getting on Israel’s case pays. Precisely because Sweden and its European partners stick to their guns only when doing so does not affect their economic interests, it is hard to take their sermons seriously. The unmistakable conclusion from Europe’s behavior is that once Israel becomes a natural gas exporter, it will be treated differently. Even E.H. Carr could have understood that.

Dr. Emmanuel Navon..
i24 News..
01 April '15..

British historian Edward Hallett Carr is generally known by international relations students as a theoretician who advocated realism in foreign policy. What Carr meant by realism was that there should be no moral dimension to foreign policy, and that statesmen must treat reality as it is and not as they wish it were. Yet the way Carr looked at reality was so delusional that it bordered on insanity: he supported Hitler’s claims and Chamberlain’s appeasement policy in the 1930s; he claimed that Britain could not win the war against Germany; and he praised Soviet communism as a highly successful system which the rest of the world would eventually emulate. While Carr’s writing was mostly nonsensical, he did get one thing right: states are motivated by interests and only evoke morality to justify their foreign policy.

European diplomacy is a case in point. The French and British bombed Gaddafi and spared Assad because Libya is an oil state while Syria is not – and yet Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron claimed that the 2011 NATO operation in Libya was motivated by humanitarian concerns. European leaders and diplomats would have us believe that their foreign policy is based on principles such as human rights and self-determination, yet they dare not criticize occupiers and human rights violators whose business they need. Saudi Arabia can torture bloggers because its oil is indispensable. China can occupy Tibet because it is a world power. Russia can occupy Georgia because no one is going to risk a nuclear war for the independence of this former Soviet republic. Turkey can occupy Cyprus and deny the Kurds their independence because Turkey is a valuable trade partner with temperamental leaders.

European diplomats typically retort that Israel gets different treatment because, as a democracy, it is rightfully judged by higher standards. According to this argument, Turkey is democratic enough to be a NATO member and a potential EU one, but not democratic enough to be asked to end its occupation of Cyprus and to give the Kurds a state.

The gap between theory and practice in European diplomacy was recently confirmed by Sweden’s Middle East policy. In October 2014, Sweden became the first European country to recognize the virtual “State of Palestine.” As a reward, Sweden’s foreign minister, Margot Wallstrom, was invited to the March 2015 meeting of the Arab League. Wallstrom prepared a speech in which she said that human rights should be respected in the Arab world too, and she sent a draft to her hosts for review. The speech was vetoed and canceled by Saudi Arabia. The Arab League explained in a statement that Wallstrom’s speech would have been an offense to Islam.

The fury didn’t end there. Saudi Arabia announced that it would not issue new business visas to Swedes, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) recalled its ambassador to Sweden. Swedish businessmen started getting nervous and asked their government to apologize to the Saudis. Not that the Swedish government needed to be convinced: it is running for the 2017 UN Security Council bid, and the 22 votes of the Arab League at the General Assembly are critical. So Wallstrom decided to apologize for mentioning human rights. On March 20 she said that she had never meant to criticize Islam and that Sweden wants to preserve good relations with Saudi Arabia.

Understanding Why Obama’s Stance on Israel is Questioned by So Many

...The president can complain about his hurt feelings as much as he wants though to do so strains even the credulity of his most fawning interviewers. But by agreeing to a deal that makes Iran a threshold nuclear power without insisting on it dropping its ideology of hate, the president has answered questions about his negative attitude toward Israel by confirming the worst fears of his critics.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
06 April '15..

Yesterday (Sunday)  in an interview with the New York Times Thomas Friedman, President Obama purported to be aggrieved that anyone would question his support for Israel or his respect for concerns about its security. Not satisfied with merely asserting his devotion to the Jewish state, he said it was “personally difficult” to hear such criticism and that he would consider his presidency “a failure” if anything he did weakened it. Six years of endless attempts to undermine Israel’s diplomatic position and the last few months of bitter, personal and even vulgar criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu culminating in threats to leave it isolated at the United Nations made his protestations absurd if not completely disingenuous. But Israelis could at least console themselves that in the course of trying to sell his appeasement of Iran to Congress, he was trying to downplay the crisis in the alliance that he had created. But it only took 24 hours for Obama to answer his own question about why so many Americans and Israelis question his attitude about Israel. In another interview, this time with another friendly questioner from the reliably liberal NPR, Obama dismissed the suggestion that Iran be asked to recognize Israel as part of the nuclear deal he is promoting. His reason: doing so would mean asking Iran to change the nature of its regime. To which critics must respond that this is exactly why it can’t be trusted with a nuclear infrastructure.

Obama said the following to NPR’s Steve Inskeep:

The notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons in a verifiable deal on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment.

Obama went on to say that he believed the reason why the deal couldn’t be struck in that matter was because his goal was to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and that he couldn’t count on it changing.

That makes a sort of superficial sense. And if the as yet unwritten deal actually ensured that Iran could never get a nuclear weapon, he might have a strong case for ignoring the nature of the Iranian government. But despite his ardent salesmanship, he can’t honestly claim that it does. Obama has made an endless string of concessions that have allowed to keep its nuclear infrastructure, included its fortified bunker at Fordow, not forced it to export its stockpile of nuclear fuel, reveal the extent of its nuclear research and put an expiration date on the restrictions on its program. All this means that Iran can, if it is patient, build up its nuclear capabilities and then have a bomb in short order at the end of the agreement. Or, if it is not that patient, it can easily cheat its way to a weapon due to the weakness of the deal and the lack of a truly strict inspections regime or the ability of the West to quickly reimpose sanctions.

At best, all Obama has accomplished is to delay an Iranian bomb. At worst, he has allowed it to get close to one with Western permission and after having made it impossible to reassemble the international coalition that might have brought Iran to its knees had it been led by an American president with the guts to stick to a tough line rather than one that folded at every opportunity. The reason for this was that Obama’s goal throughout this process was détente with an aggressive, anti-Semitic and tyrannical regime rather than an effort to keep his 2012 campaign promise to eliminate its nuclear program.

Thus, the question about forcing it to recognize Israel is actually an apt one. Having empowered Iran at a time when its quest for regional hegemony via actions in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and now Gaza are scaring Israelis as well as moderate Arabs, it is fair to ask why the deal ignored Tehran’s support for terrorism and its frequent threats to obliterate Israel.

Persian carpetry and the merchants of menace

...Innocent tourists walking by a Persian merchant's shop may get ripped off but end up with a carpet - perhaps too expensive, perhaps low quality, perhaps bound to crumble soon - but a carpet. No one in these negotiations ever had a realistic basis for thinking Iran's merchants were selling carpets (i.e. ordinary nuclear energy). Their program was in fact weapons-directed at all stages. The negotiators for the P5+1 all know this, knew this, but smile broadly when the cameras are pointed at them. We wonder how.

Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
06 April '15..

Dr Michael Oren served Israel as its ambassador to the United States between 2009 and 2013. He ran for the Knesset in the February 2015 elections and is now a politician, representing the brand-spanking-new Kulanu Party (created just five months ago). Still, what he says often hits the right note, in our view.

So here is an extract from an essay of his, published a couple of days ago on the TIME website, and offering some gently-worded but trenchant criticism of the West's approach - and in particular America's - to the Nuclear Iran deal and what the Persian carpet business ("Iran’s largest after oil") can teach us.

...The Middle Eastern form of negotiating, perfected over thousands of years, should no longer be alien to Westerners. The Palestinians have employed it repeatedly, starting each round of peace talks with “how much are you willing to spend?” If the answer is a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps and its capital in East Jerusalem, be assured that this will be their new opening position. The Palestinians — not the Israelis — keep walking away from the table, each time pocketing their newly-obtained concessions.

Nobody should be surprised, when discussions on a final nuclear agreement begin, Iranian delegates treat the parameters agreement as the baseline for garnering an even better price.

(Continue Reading)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 
.

What does “messes with Israel” mean? No one has the slightest idea.

....The President unfortunately uses this kind of diction too often, dumbing down his rhetoric for some reason and leaving listeners confused. Today, Iran is sending arms and money to Hamas in Gaza, and has done so for years. Is that “messing with Israel?” Iran has tried to blow up several Israeli embassies, repeating the successful attack it made on Israel’s embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992. Fortunately Israel has foiled the more recent plots, but is attempting to bomb Israeli embassies “messing with Israel?”

Elliott Abrams..
Pressure Points..
06 April '15..

In his lengthy interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, President Obama makes many statements about Israel’s security and how the proposed deal with Iran enhances it. These words from the interview are key:

I have to respect the fears that the Israeli people have,” he added, “and I understand that Prime Minister Netanyahu is expressing the deep-rooted concerns that a lot of the Israeli population feel about this, but what I can say to them is: Number one, this is our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, and number two, what we will be doing even as we enter into this deal is sending a very clear message to the Iranians and to the entire region that if anybody messes with Israel, America will be there.

What does “messes with Israel” mean? No one has the slightest idea. The President unfortunately uses this kind of diction too often, dumbing down his rhetoric for some reason and leaving listeners confused. Today, Iran is sending arms and money to Hamas in Gaza, and has done so for years. Is that “messing with Israel?” Iran has tried to blow up several Israeli embassies, repeating the successful attack it made on Israel’s embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992. Fortunately Israel has foiled the more recent plots, but is attempting to bomb Israeli embassies “messing with Israel?” Iranian Revolutionary Guards, along with Hezbollah troops, are in southern Syria now near the Golan. Is that “messing with Israel?” And what does the President mean by “America will be there?’ With arms? With bandages? With the diplomatic protection his administration is now considering removing at the United Nations?

Unquestionably, Appeasing Iran Will Come With a Terrible Price

...The Islamic Republic remains implacably opposed to Israel's existence and its leaders speak approvingly of the country's destruction. The U.S. is in Iran's sights too. Hence Ayatollah Khamenei's chilling call for 'Death to America' only a fortnight ago in Tehran. No attempt is made to hide such incendiary rhetoric. Instead it is embraced with a zeal and brazenness that is wholly unsettling. This deal allows Iran to continue sponsoring terrorist groups, carry out human rights violations and destabilise the entire region. This is the truly terrible price to pay for appeasing a rogue regime.

Jeremy Harvardi..
The Commentator..
04 April '15..

he face of it, the parameters of the deal on Iran's nuclear programme are better than expected. The country is not about to join the elite nuclear club, at least for the time being. Under the proposed deal, Tehran must reduce by two thirds all its installed centrifuges, and those that remain will only be first generation.

It has agreed 'not to enrich uranium over 3.67 percent' for 15 years while reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium from 10,000 kg to 300 kg for the same period. It has agreed 'not to enrich uranium at Fordow for 15 years' and to rebuild the heavy water reactor in Arak for peaceful purposes.

The IAEA 'will have regular access to all of Iran's nuclear facilities' and 'the supply chain that supports Iran's nuclear program'. Sanctions relief will be given if Iran 'verifiably abides by its commitments' but sanctions 'snap back' if there is 'significant non-performance'.

For the next decade, the breakout time for acquiring enough fissile material for a bomb, currently two to three months, will be extended to at least one year.

But appeasement has a price -- it always does. Iran has effectively received international legitimacy as a nuclear threshold state. Years of Security Council resolutions were supposed to have resulted in the complete suspension of nuclear activities and the removal of Iran's nuclear architecture.

(Continue Reading)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 
.

For the BBC, why is this Israeli planning decision different from others ?

...Now we see another example of the disturbing fact that the BBC’s issues with Israeli construction actually do not depend on the project’s location – or even on the topic of building itself – but upon the faith and ethnicity of the people it assumes will be moving into newly built apartments and houses in specific areas. There’s a word for that.

Hadar Sela..
BBC Watch..
04 April '15..

Whenever an Israeli planning body makes an announcement concerning some stage or other of the construction of apartments and houses in certain neighbourhoods of Jerusalem or towns and villages in Judea and Samaria, the BBC is usually very quick off the mark in producing a report which typically includes condemnation from PA officials, comment from at least one political NGO and the standard BBC insert designed to impress upon audiences that “settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this”.

Last week, however, the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee approved the construction of 2,200 new apartments in a neighbourhood on the ‘wrong’ side of the 1949 Armistice Lines and yet not a word on that decision appeared on the BBC News website.

(Continue Reading)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 
.

The U.N. and why the future viability of international law should be in serious question

...In failing to adhere to international law, the United Nations has, as its principle violator, primarily itself. The real dispute is not about a "Palestinian State." It is about who has the right to the entire area. This is also the reason the Palestinians will never sign an "end of conflict" agreement.

A map of Palestine published in an 1890 atlas by
John Y. Huber & Co. of Philadelphia (click to enlarge).

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin..
Gatestone Institute..
03 April '15..

There is an unspoken racist assumption that underlies the drive for a separate Palestinian Arab state: that no Jews should be allowed to live there. Presumably, this is why any land now resided on by Jews in the West Bank is called a "settlement." The assumption is apparently that the entire area is an illegal colony.

What is less well known is that even though Jews have continuously lived in this region -- it is called Judea -- for nearly 4,000 years, to many Muslims, the entire State of Israel, not just the West Bank, is considered an "illegal settlement." Please look at any map of "Palestine." It is exactly this view that is the real source of the dispute. The real dispute is not about a "Palestinian State." It is about who has the right to the entire area. This is also the reason the Palestinian negotiators will never sign an "end of conflict" agreement. As we have seen with Syria and Iraq, "official borders," even and including the "pre-1967 line," do not matter any more.

Further, the Palestinian Authority (PA) -- Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah as well as Hamas -- continues to educate the next generation of Arab Palestinians that Israel is destined to disappear. The PA continues to depict a world without Israel and a future without Israel -- a vision first embodied in the Palestinian Liberation Organization's (PLO) 1974 Ten Point Program, known as the "Phased Plan." Its stated goal -- never rescinded -- is the "liberation of all of Palestine." This is to be done in stages, a "salami" tactic, by which any land acquired is to be used as a forward base from which to take the rest.[1]

Hamas, with whom the PA is now aligned in a "Unity Government," takes the Phased Plan a bit farther. Hamas, in its Charter, advocates not only displacing Israel, but killing all the Jews worldwide as well, or genocide. This too has never been rescinded.

The fraudulent diplomatic charade now underway in the U.S. and Europe, treating Palestinian Arabs as the only victims, ignores the historical reality that a Jewish claim to these territories is at least as valid, if not more.

It is not the Jews or the Israelis who have rejected peace; they signed agreements, still in effect, with both Jordan and Egypt, and have offered the Palestinians opportunity after opportunity to do the same.

It was the Arabs and Muslims that rejected the Partition Plan internationally offered them in 1947.[2] It was the Arabs and Muslims that attacked Israel on the day of its founding -- as they did every war after that -- but were defeated.[3] The 1949 armistice line -- where the fighting stopped -- is now pointed to as the new border to which Israel must supposedly retreat.

And now they are about to be rewarded for aggression?

In Our Neck of the Woods, Actions Speak Louder than Words by Mordechai Kedar

...In our neighborhood, we don't talk. We act. Those who talk usually don't do anything and have no desire to do anything, hoping that their words will cover up for their lack of action. Israel's new government must work together on a practical plan, not one that is all verbiage and "agreements" - and start acting to put facts on the ground. In the long run, the world accepts Middle East reality, even unpleasant reality, because that is how this region operates.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar..
IsraelNationalNews.com..
02 April '15..

Analysis of the events that occurred over the last few years in the Middle East, shows that the most powerful, central and influential component of these events is not a verbal one – not speeches, promises, documents and agreements. What counts are actions on the ground and the accompanying threats of violence.

There is no dearth of examples that prove this rule:

Egypt is the most obvious. In June 2012, Mohamed Morsi was elected to the presidency, in the first ever democratic elections held in Egypt. A little over a year later, in July 2013, Defense Minister Abd el Fatah al-Sisi arose and deposed Morsi. The world erupted, Obama reached the boiling point, and the USA froze its military aid to Egypt. Everyone demanded that Sisi put Morsi back in office, but he refused. Then Sisi held democratic elections and won. This week – twenty months after Morsi was deposed – Obama finally realized that his dream of bringing about Muslim Brotherhood hegemony over the entire Middle East has to be put on hold. He phoned Sisi and told him that the US will renew military aid to Egypt. Sisi's stubbornness paid off in a big way, and the Egyptian general succeeded in forcing his agenda on the President of the United States.

Another example is Assad, the mass-murdering despot who has killed tens of thousands of Syrian citizens over the past four years while the world observed the carnage and did nothing. When he crossed the most red of lines and used chemical weapons against his own people, the lines seemed to turn pink, then white and then became transparent before our very eyes.

The world condemns, the UN Security Council adopts meaningless decisions, but Assad's continued bestial behavior is the only reason he still rules part of Syria. His actions speak louder than all the words uttered by the world and its leaders.

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization armed with tens of thousands of missiles, found guilty of the murder of Lebanon's previous prime minister, Rafik al Hariri. The UN Security Council forbade the organization's rearming after the Second Lebanon War, but these words did not stop it from rearming. Moreover, Europe has been cooperating with the "civilian arm" of this terrorist entity that also took over Lebanon. In other words, what the world says doesn't matter, but what Hezbollah achieves, does. Does the fact that Hezbollah's militants murder Syrian citizens bother anyone enough to do something? It seems the world realizes that words will not change this reality.

Iran has been moving towards acquiring nuclear weapons for years, a game changer for regional and world politics. The entire world is talking about it, speeches are made, documents are written, papers are published, agreements are signed - but all the billions of words spilled worldwide on the subject have not brought Iran to stop its nuclear plans for one minute. Only the West's 2003 invasion of Iraq resulted in Iran's stopping the development of its nuclear project for a while. Iran went back to nuclear activity in 2006 when it realized that no one planned to invade its territory, despite all the evidence of Iranian involvement in the Iraqi uprising, and despite the incontrovertible fact that Iran - indirectly, but intentionally - caused the deaths of thousands of American and other soldiers in Iraq up to 2010. What affects Iranian behavior is not what is said about the country, but what is done - or not done - against the Iranian regime.

Noha Hashad not only escaped Egypt, but sought Jerusalem

...Looking out at the Mediterranean Sea from her Haifa balcony, far away from her family, Hashad is living in self-imposed exile. She fled Egypt by the skin of her teeth thanks to the Arab Spring and the subsequent fall of Mubarak. She has had to contend with constant threats from Islamic elements. "Israel is a jewel," she said, gently caressing her physical scars. "Israel is a diamond, and I'm lucky to be here."

Emily Amrousi..
Israel Hayom..
03 April '15..

The biblical proverb commands human beings of each generation to view themselves as if they had fled Egypt. Here, sitting right in front of me, is a real-life Egyptian refugee, a woman whose escape was very recent. Her wounds are still fresh, and hallmarks of the arduous journey could be visible on her face.

Not only did Noha Hashad flee Egypt, but she chose Jerusalem as her safe haven. Perhaps she is worthy of consideration for the title of Righteous Among the Nations. In championing for Israel's cause in her homeland, she paid (and is paying) a dear price. When she openly sided with Israel, she was arrested by the Hosni Mubarak regime, suffering beatings and torture at the hands of the authorities. As a result of her ordeal, she was left disabled.

Looking out at the Mediterranean Sea from her Haifa balcony, far away from her family, Hashad is living in self-imposed exile. She fled Egypt by the skin of her teeth thanks to the Arab Spring and the subsequent fall of Mubarak. She has had to contend with constant threats from Islamic elements.

"Israel is a jewel," she said, gently caressing her physical scars. "Israel is a diamond, and I'm lucky to be here."

"No fear gene"

Now 51 years of age, Hashad was born and raised in Muslim Cairo. As a young girl, she was sent to a private school in Saudi Arabia, where she underwent instruction on the Quran and Islam. On her mother's side, she is a direct descendant of Hussein Bin Ali, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and the founder of Shia Islam. On her father's side, she is certain that there is a connection to Judaism. It is believed that her father is a descendant of the Baal Shem Tov.

"Apparently, my last name, Hashad, is derived from the Hebrew word Hassid," she said.

An educated woman, Hashad speaks fluent English. She declines the opportunity to discuss her family for fear that they could be subject to harm in Egypt. She took an interest in the Israeli-Arab conflict just as she was in the process of completing her doctorate in nuclear physics from Beni-Suef University. She also taught nuclear physics at both Beni-Suef and Cairo University. On top of that, she oversaw her own research laboratory.

From her new home in Haifa 500 kilometers away, Hashad is now in the process of founding a center to promote peace in the Middle East. She is currently working on translating Mahmoud Abbas' first book into English. Hashad must still face down threats to her life which are posted on Facebook and expressed in letters and phone calls.

"I'm not afraid," she said. "I don't know why. I don't have the gene of fear."

Her curiosity about Egypt's neighbor to the northeast began to percolate in 1999. This was when Hashad was hard at work on her master's thesis which focused on molecular physics. Her expertise was considered so vast that she was offered an opportunity to work for the Egyptian government in the area of radioactive safety.

The diplomatic track to war by Caroline Glick

...Iran is far more powerful than the PLO. But the Americans apparently believe they are immune from the consequences of their leaders’ policies. This is not the case for Israel or for our neighbors. We lack the luxury of ignoring the fact that Obama’s disastrous diplomacy has brought war upon us. Deal or no deal, we are again about to be forced to pay a price to maintain our freedom.

Caroline Glick..
CarolineGlick.com..
03 April '15..

The world powers assembled at Lausanne, Switzerland, with the representatives of the Islamic Republic may or may not reach a framework deal regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But succeed or fail, the disaster that their negotiations have unleashed is already unfolding. The damage they have caused is irreversible.

US President Barack Obama, his advisers and media cheerleaders have long presented his nuclear diplomacy with the Iran as the only way to avoid war. Obama and his supporters have castigated as warmongers those who oppose his policy of nuclear appeasement with the world’s most prolific state sponsor of terrorism.

But the opposite is the case. Had their view carried the day, war could have been averted.

Through their nuclear diplomacy, Obama and his comrades started the countdown to war.

In recent weeks we have watched the collapse of the allied powers’ negotiating positions.

They have conceded every position that might have placed a significant obstacle in Iran’s path to developing a nuclear arsenal.

They accepted Iran’s refusal to come clean on the military dimensions of its past nuclear work and so ensured that to the extent UN nuclear inspectors are able to access Iran’s nuclear installations, those inspections will not provide anything approaching a full picture of its nuclear status. By the same token, they bowed before Iran’s demand that inspectors be barred from all installations Iran defines as “military” and so enabled the ayatollahs to prevent the world from knowing anything worth knowing about its nuclear activities.

On the basis of Iran’s agreement to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, the US accepted Iran’s demand that it be allowed to maintain and operate more than 6,000 centrifuges.

But when on Monday Iran went back on its word and refused to ship its uranium to Russia, the US didn’t respond by saying Iran couldn’t keep spinning 6,000 centrifuges. The US made excuses for Iran.

The US delegation willingly acceded to Iran’s demand that it be allowed to continue operating its fortified, underground enrichment facility at Fordow. In so doing, the US minimized the effectiveness of a future limited air campaign aimed at significantly reducing Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

With this broad range of great power concessions already in its pocket, the question of whether or not a deal is reached has become a secondary concern. The US and its negotiating partners have agreed to a set of understanding with the Iranians. Whether these understandings become a formal agreement or not is irrelevant because the understandings are already being implemented.

True, the US has not yet agreed to Iran’s demand for an immediate revocation of the economic sanctions now standing against it. But the notion that sanctions alone can pressure Iran into making nuclear concessions has been destroyed by Obama’s nuclear diplomacy in which the major concessions have all been made by the US.

No sanctions legislation that Congress may pass in the coming months will be able to force a change in Iran’s behavior if they are not accompanied by other coercive measures undertaken by the executive branch.

There is nothing new in this reality. For a regime with no qualms about repressing its society, economic sanctions are not an insurmountable challenge. But it is possible that if sanctions were implemented as part of a comprehensive plan to use limited coercive means to block Iran’s nuclear advance, they could have effectively blocked Iran’s progress to nuclear capabilities while preventing war. Such a comprehensive strategy could have included a proxy campaign to destabilize the regime by supporting regime opponents in their quest to overthrow the mullahs. It could have involved air strikes or sabotage of nuclear installations and strategic regime facilities like Revolutionary Guards command and control bases and ballistic missile storage facilities. It could have involved diplomatic isolation of Iran.

Moreover, if sanctions were combined with a stringent policy of blocking Iran’s regional expansion by supporting Iraqi sovereignty, supporting the now deposed government of Yemen and making a concerted effort to weaken Hezbollah and overthrow the Iranian-backed regime in Syria, then the US would have developed a strong deterrent position that would likely have convinced Iran that its interest was best served by curbing its imperialist enthusiasm and setting aside its nuclear ambitions.

In other words, a combination of these steps could have prevented war and prevented a nuclear Iran. But today, the US-led capitulation to Iran has pulled the rug out from any such comprehensive strategy. The administration has no credibility. No one trusts Obama to follow through on his declared commitment to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Iranian Defector: U.S. Negotiators Argue Iran’s Side. Where's the Coverage?

...In a subsequent television interview, Motaghi described the talks he’d been witnessing, saying, “The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal.”

Sarit Catz..
CAMERA Snapshots..
02 April '15..







The United Kingdom’s The Telegraph has reported:

A close media aide to Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, has sought political asylum in Switzerland after travelling to Lausanne to cover the nuclear talks between Tehran and the West.

Amir Hossein Motaghi, who managed public relations for Mr Rouhani during his 2013 election campaign, was said by Iranian news agencies to have quit his job at the Iran Student Correspondents Association (ISCA).

In a subsequent television interview, Motaghi described the talks he’d been witnessing, saying, “The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal.”

A question for Jeremy Bowen and his morally-challenged BBC handlers

...We have just one question that, if Jeremy Bowen had thought to ask, might have left him and his loathsome interview guest looking a touch less composed

BBC's Bowen [Image Source]

Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
01 April '15..

Jeremy Bowen and his BBC minders today provide the sleek arch-terrorist Khaled Meshaal with an invaluable platform (not for the first time) for marketing the jihadist program of his outlawed Hamas terror organization to an international audience, safe from the threat of incisive or even semi-informed questions. Despotic, thuggish 'militant' terrorists world-wide must be green with envy.

Just three jaw-dropping - and unchallenged - quotes from the text version of "Hamas leader Meshaal warns of Israeli 'extremism' after elections" [BBC World, today] (we assume a longer video version will eventually emerge):

In an interview with BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen in Qatar, Mr Meshaal said attacks on Israel would continue "as long as there is occupation, aggression, war and killing". But he stressed that Hamas was "careful to respect international humanitarian law and to target only military targets".

"...Israel killed the peace process," he added, blaming Mr Netanyahu's outgoing government, along with "extremist forces" in Israel, for the collapse of the US-brokered direct negotiations last year.

Hamas... was "an active resistance with a just cause, battling the occupier." "Others practice violence under the name of jihad, which we condemn. And this is not Islam. Islam encourages its followers to fight those who occupy their land and their sacred places. But Islam does not allow killing innocent people, civilians, or killing based on identity, belief and different views, political or religious."

Nod-nod, yes-yes. The reporter, evidently overawed by the presence of greatness, puts it out there for Joe Average to take in. Moral value judgement? Common sense? Horror in the face of unapologetic, religion-inspired blood-lusting murder? Those are probably not Bowen's thing. Or his editors'.

(Continue Reading)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 
.

The miracle of freedom. Noha Hashad's exodus from Egypt

...They say every generation one must see themselves as if they themselves made the exodus from Egypt. Egyptian nuclear physicist Noha Hashad not only escaped Egypt, but sought Jerusalem.

"Israel is like a jewel, a diamond, I am very 
fortunate to be here." Egyptian nuclear 
physicist Noha Hashad fled to Israel in 2011 
Photo credit: Michel Dot Com

Emily Amrousi..
Israel Hayom..
01 April '15..

They say every generation one must see themselves as if they themselves made the exodus from Egypt. Egyptian nuclear physicist Noha Hashad not only escaped Egypt, but sought Jerusalem. The 51-year-old native Egyptian Muslim was an accomplished academic who lectured at many universities when she began identifying with Israel.

Noha was arrested by security forces belonging to Hosni Mubarak's regime. Her crime? Looking for proof of the Jews' rights to the land of Israel in the Quran. She was jailed for 12 years. Noha was interrogated and tortured under suspicion of spying for Israel. Her interrogations left her handicapped. She managed to escape Egypt during the Arab Spring protests and the fall of the Mubarak regime in 2011, fleeing to Jordan and then coming to Israel as a refugee.

This is the first time Noha Hashad's story is coming to light.

"Israel is like a jewel, a diamond, I am very fortunate to be here," she said, sitting near the beach in Haifa. Noha founded a center for peace in the Middle East, with respected scholars of Middle East studies, and is working on the English translation of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' first book, "The Beginning and End of Zionism."

The book is being translated to "expose his [Abbas'] true face -- not Holocaust denial like in his known doctoral work," Noha said. "But Israel denial."

(Video) Students for Justice in Palestine - Spreading Hate Under the Guise of Social Justice

StandWithUs..
31 March '15..

Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) sells itself as a group of grassroots activists for human rights and justice, but what they do in reality is promote an anti-peace, anti-justice, anti-human rights agenda on campus. They host extremist, hateful speakers and programs, and reject efforts to build mutual respect and understanding between Israelis and Palestinians.



Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GX8yt2uak

Visit Stand With Us at http://standwithus.com/

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 
.

More under-reported aspects of the Iranian reality

...Give the man credit for eschewing the genteel double-talk of his political superiors. What's on his mind is "erasing Israel off the map".

Iran's Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi: That
Westerners know almost nothing about the man, his sadistic,
lethal cruelty, and the central role he plays in Iranian life,
speaks volumes for the debate over a nuclear Iran deal
[Image Source]

Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
01 April '15..

With the attention of most of the news-reporting industry focused on Lausanne and the marathon efforts to negotiate a nuclear Iran agreement, the name of Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi is not the one on most people's lips. Perhaps it ought to be.

Naqdi, actually an Iraqi with Iranian "origins" with a penchant for practising self-torture, is the commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran's Sâzmân-e Basij-e Mostaz'afin ("The Organization for Mobilization of the Oppressed"), usually described as a 'paramilitary' force. If people know of it at all, it's may be under the name Basij.

The New York Times described it in 2009 ["Shadowy Iranian Vigilantes Vow Bolder Action", June 18, 2009] this way:

The daytime protests across the Islamic republic have been largely peaceful. But Iranians shudder at the violence unleashed in their cities at night, with the shadowy vigilantes known as Basijis beating, looting and sometimes gunning down protesters they tracked during the day... [T]he Basijis lack uniforms, proper identification or anything that denotes them as public employees [and appear] with hoses, clubs, iron bars, truncheons and sometimes firearms.

At a time when the true motivations of Iran's leadership are at the heart of serious global controversy with existential consequences, Naqdi and his views appear to be getting kid gloves treatment - not so much here in Israel, for obvious reasons.

(Continue Reading)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 
.

Not Only Do Israeli Peace Gestures Not Work, They Make Matters Worse.

...Until a sea change occurs in Palestinian political culture, Israel’s leaders would be wise to make no more concessions that will only whet the appetite of the terrorists for more Jewish blood. Nor should Netanyahu be under the illusion that President Obama will react with any more generosity toward Israel in the next two years than he has in the previous six. Far from staving off destruction as Ross and his friends think, their advice will likely lead to more diplomatic problems as well as more violence. Just as doctors are advised by their Hippocratic oaths to do no harm, so, too, should Israel’s prime minister be wise enough to eschew a repetition of the mistakes that he and his predecessors have made in the not-so-distant past.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
31 March '15..

For those Americans who care about Israel, this is a time of crisis. The Obama administration’s reckless pursuit of détente with Iran and its anger over the reelection of Prime Minister Netanyahu has brought us to a critical moment in which it is now possible to imagine the United States abandoning Israel at the United Nations and taking steps to further distance itself from the Jewish state. Many in this country place most of the blame for the problem on Netanyahu because of his willingness to directly challenge the president on Iran and his statements about the two-state solution and the Arab vote prior to his victory that have undermined his reputation among non-Israelis. In response some well-meaning thinkers are proposing that the answer to the problem lies in gestures that Netanyahu could undertake that would both improve Israel’s image and lower tensions with the United States. But Netanyahu is right to not think the effort worth the bother. The recent history of the conflict illustrates that Israeli concessions intended to prove their devotion to peace don’t impress either the Arabs or foreign critics. In fact, they may make things worse.

While President Obama has been spoiling for fights with Israel’s government since he took office in 2009, his temper tantrum about Netanyahu’s victory now threatens to make his previous tilt toward the Palestinians seem trivial. So it is hardly surprising that veteran peace processers would think the time is right for Netanyahu to do something to appease the president’s wrath. That’s the conceit of a Politico Magazine article jointly credited to former State Department official Dennis Ross and think tank figures David Makovsky and Ghaith Al-Omari that lays out a series of suggestions intended to calm things down and get Israel out of the presidential dog house as well as to calm the waters with both Europe and the Palestinians.

Ross, Makovsky, and Al-Omari are smart enough to realize that the time isn’t right to revive a peace process that is dead in the water. The Palestinians have repeatedly rejected peace offers and show no sign that they are any more willing to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state alongside one of their own no matter where its borders are drawn.

But they think it would be wise for Netanyahu to freeze building in settlements beyond the blocs that most concede would remain inside Israel in the event of a peace agreement. Allowing the Palestinians the right to build more in parts of the West Bank that would, at least in theory, be part of their state would calm the waters as would less confrontational rhetoric from Netanyahu. This would, they say, counter the campaign to delegitimize the prime minister and his nation and might prompt similar gestures from the Palestinians, such as a promise to avoid bringing their complaints to the United Nations instead of negotiating as they are committed to do under the Oslo Accords.

It all sounds very smart. Fair or not, Netanyahu is perceived as politically radioactive in Europe and, despite Israel’s popularity in the United States, President Obama’s efforts to turn both Iran and Israel into political footballs has undermined the bipartisan nature of the pro-Israel coalition. Gestures aimed at restoring Israel’s good name seem the only answer to a crisis of these dimensions.

But as logical as that sounds, such a course of action not only wouldn’t improve Israel’s image, they would probably further damage it.

How can that be?

Because the recent history of the conflict teaches us that gestures even more far reaching than those suggested for Netanyahu have the opposite effect on both the Palestinians and their foreign cheerleaders.