ONCE AGAIN BOTEACH DOESN’T SPEAK FOR ME

It must be nice to have extra money lying around that can be used to take out a full page ad in the New York Times. When a narcissist does not have an audience, he must create one …. that’s the game Shmuley Boteach plays.

Last month he and his weasel (Eli) buddy took out an ad condemning Susan Rice, an array of Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Federations of North America, condemned the ad.  This week President Obama is the target. It will be interesting to see who joins me in condemning this ad as well.  Earlier today I posted that the Jewish Voice For Peace is gaining influence by leaps and bounds, see the post HERE. Boteach, on the other hand gets his foot caught in his mouth with every word he utters.  

An ad appearing in the New York Times over the weekend which warns US President Barack Obama not to become ‘like Chamberlain’ with Iran. (photo credit: Courtesy)

An ad appearing in the New York Times over the weekend which warns US President Barack Obama not to become ‘like Chamberlain’ with Iran. (photo credit: Courtesy)

Rabbi’s NYTimes ad urges Obama not to be ‘like Chamberlain’

Weeks after apologizing for insulting Susan Rice in an ad, Shmuley Boteach calls on president ‘not to appease Iran’

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach published a large ad Saturday in the New York Times, in which he urged Obama not to rush into a nuclear deal with Iran that many in Israel and elsewhere believe will leave Iran’s capabilities largely intact and within reach of a nuclear weapon.

In the ad, Obama’s portrait appears with the text “Mr. President: Fighting al-Qaeda made you like Churchill. Appeasing Iran will make you like Chamberlain.”

Overlain on a portrait of the president is a newspaper clip showing the cover of The New York Times edition of Friday, September 30, 1938.

Boteach was is referring to former British prime minister Winston Churchill, who led the UK during World War II.

He succeeded PM Neville Chamberlain, who went down in history as the leader who signed the Munich agreement with Adolf Hitler in 1938, paving the way for Germany’s conquest of eastern Europe.

At the bottom of the ad are the words “Don’t allow Iran to become a nuclear power.”

The ad by the New Jersey-based rabbi and author comes less than a month after he apologized to Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, for a much-criticized ad that accused her of “having a blind spot for genocide.”

The ad, which ran on February 28, said “Susan Rice has a blind spot: Genocide,” criticized Rice’s complaints about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress for days before he delivered it.

The ad said Rice’s objections to the speech “could not be more wrong” and criticized her for refusing to use the word “genocide” in reference to Rwanda as a member of president Bill Clinton’s national security team.

An array of Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Federations of North America, condemned the ad.

A week after the March 3 speech, Boteach penned an op-ed in the Washington Post titled “Dear Susan Rice, I’m Sorry.” In the piece, he admitted that the ad was more of a personal attack than an opinion on policy

Written by Jonathan Beck FOR 

ISRAEL’S NUCLEAR BACKLASH

Kudos to the Obama Administration for doing the right thing

Kudos to the Obama Administration for doing the right thing

What was a secret since 1987 is now public knowledge thanks to America’s move to declassify a document revealing Israel’s Nuclear Program.

Why it remained classified all these years is beyond comprehension, but the timing seemed right for the Obama  Administration in response to Netanyahu’s gross accusations that Iran is the only nuclear power and threat in the Middle East.

The timing of the revelation is highly suspect, given that it came as tensions spiraled out of control between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama ahead of Netanyahu’s March 3 address in Congress, in which he warned against the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program and how the deal being formed on that program leaves the Islamic regime with nuclear breakout capabilities.

The Document in question can be seen by clicking HERE

One has to wonder who he is actually talking about

One has to wonder who he is actually talking about

US Declassifies Document Revealing Israel’s Nuclear Program

Obama revenge for Netanyahu’s Congress talk? 1987 report on Israel’s top secret nuclear program released in unprecedented move.
GETTY IMAGES Secret Place: Israel’s nuclear reaction in Dimona, photographed in 2014.

GETTY IMAGES
Secret Place: Israel’s nuclear reaction in Dimona, photographed in 2014.

In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel’s nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.

But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the US reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel’s nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth.

The timing of the revelation is highly suspect, given that it came as tensions spiraled out of control between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama ahead of Netanyahu’s March 3 address in Congress, in which he warned against the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program and how the deal being formed on that program leaves the Islamic regime with nuclear breakout capabilities.

Another highly suspicious aspect of the document is that while the Pentagon saw fit to declassify sections on Israel’s sensitive nuclear program, it kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document.

The 386-page report entitled “Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations” gives a detailed description of how Israel advanced its military technology and developed its nuclear infrastructure and research in the 1970s and 1980s.

Israel is “developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs. That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level,” reveals the report, stating that in the 1980s Israelis were reaching the ability to create bombs considered a thousand times more powerful than atom bombs.

The revelation marks a first in which the US published in a document adescription of how Israel attained hydrogen bombs.

The report also notes research laboratories in Israel “are equivalent to our Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories,” the key labs in developing America’s nuclear arsenal.

Israel’s nuclear infrastructure is “an almost exact parallel of the capability currently existing at our National Laboratories,” it adds.

“As far as nuclear technology is concerned the Israelis are roughly where the U.S. was in the fission weapon field in about 1955 to 1960,” the report reveals, noting a time frame just after America tested its first hydrogen bomb.

Institute for Defense Analysis, a federally funded agency operating under the Pentagon, penned the report back in 1987.

Aside from nuclear capabilities, the report revealed Israel at the time had “a totally integrated effort in systems development throughout the nation,” with electronic combat all in one “integrated system, not separated systems for the Army, Navy and Air Force.” It even acknowledged that in some cases, Israeli military technology “is more advanced than in the U.S.”

Declassifying the report comes at a sensitive timing as noted above, and given that the process to have it published was started three years ago, that timing is seen as having been the choice of the American government.

US journalist Grant Smith petitioned to have the report published based on the Freedom of Information Act. Initially the Pentagon took its time answering, leading Smith to sue, and a District Court judge to order the Pentagon to respond to the request.

Smith, who heads the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy, reportedly said he thinks this is the first time the US government has officially confirmed that Israel is a nuclear power, a status that Israel has long been widely known to have despite being undeclared.

 

Taken FROM

 

 

Another report …. click on link

Revealing Israel’s Nuclear Secrets

JON STEWART SLAMS THE GOP ON LETTER TO IRAN

Jon Stewart hammers Republicans on Iran letter: They’re ‘f*cking cuckoo bananas’

Daily Show host Jon Stewart argued on Tuesday that the letter from 47 Senate Republicans to Iranian leaders wasn’t to warn them about striking a nuclear agreement with President Barack Obama — it was really a warning about the GOP. “‘You may be able to get Obama to construct …

WHAT IRANIAN JEWS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT ALL

Like most others, Shemyon was not keen to talk about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent address to U.S. Congress, or the problems between Israel and Iran. He says those politics have no place here.

Iran’s Jews unfazed by strife with Israel … Click HERE to see short video

Shot screen from the video

Shot screen from the video

Iran’s Jewish community in Esfahan: We ‘feel at home’

Esfahan, Iran (CNNIf you’re looking for the Jewish community in the Iranian town of Esfahan, you won’t have to search for long.

The main synagogue is on Palestine Square, right in the heart of Iran’s third largest city. There are public prayers several times a day — sometimes with more than a hundred people in attendance.

The Jewish community in Iran does not hide its heritage. At the synagogue, Michael Malakon leads the prayer service. He says he is proud of his Jewish identity. And even in a country that is so hostile towards Israel, Malakon says he can practice freely and that he has many Muslim friends.

“I hang around with all kinds of young people and I have a lot of Muslim friends,” Malakon tells CNN after finishing the noon prayer on a Monday. About 20 people were in attendance, usually from local businesses around the synagogue. None of them tried to hide the fact that they were Jewish — and inside the synagogue the Star of David is proudly displayed in many places, alongside passages from the Torah.

Long history

There have been Jews in Iran for more than 2,500 years. Many left the country after the Islamic Revolution in 1979 that brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power. Khomeini said Iran wanted to destroy Israel, but he also issued a fatwa, a religious decree, saying that Iranian Jews were different to those in Israel and should be considered an integral part of the Islamic Republic.

Sion Mahgrefte is the head of the Jewish community in Esfahan. He declined to comment directly on political matters, especially in the current heated environment, but he did say that the members of his community felt very much at home in Iran.

“Israel and Iran are countries,” he said. “And we consider ourselves Iranian Jews, not Israeli Jews. So the hostilities between Israel and Iran do not affect us.”

There is even a Jewish representative in Iran’s parliament. And aside from the vibrant Jewish community in Esfahan — there are 13 synagogues in the city — there are also several Orthodox Cathedrals representing a sizable Christian community.

‘We just want peace’

Most of Esfahan’s Jews are business people. In the center of town there is a shopping mall, known to people here as the “Jewish Passage” because so many businesses are Jewish-owned. When our crew arrived there they found Muslim and Jewish shop owners joking around.

One of them is Said Shemyon, who owns a clothing store. His friends call him “Mordechai,” and he showed us some Hebrew prayer books he always keeps in the store.

Like most others, Shemyon was not keen to talk about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent address to U.S. Congress, or the problems between Israel and Iran. He says those politics have no place here.

“We just want peace,” he said. “We really hope that all these problems can be solved one day, God willing. We are just hoping for unity and peace.”

There are about 1,500 Jews in Esfahan these days. The community’s leaders conduct religious studies for the younger members of the congregation.

While Sion Mahgrefte is adamant that they have no problems with their Shia neighbors, he does acknowledge that friends living abroad often worry about them.

“Of course sometimes people we know who live in Israel or elsewhere are very concerned about us, and they tell us we are crazy to live here,” he says. “But then we tell them how things are and they calm down.”

THE TOON ZION ISN’T LAUGHING AT

CIF Watch has branched out, they now monitor all of the media in the UK. Today they target The Economist for publishing the following cartoon…

From The Economist

From The Economist

If it upsets zion, there must be some truth to it ;)

Economist cartoon contrasts peaceful Iran with belligerent Israel

Click HERE to see their pathetic whine

WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS PULL OUT THE HOLOCAUST CARD

Bibi’s song and dance on Iran wasn’t going too well …

In fact, the video shows how his opposition cashed in on the speech.

… So, it was time to pull out the Holocaust Card by acknowleging Elie Weisel in the audience.

As if that wasn’t enough, our dear Shmuley (Boteach) pulled the card out a little more afterwards by devoting his weekly Jerusalem Post column to Weisel.

Before I post his words, I must state that I am not in the camp of holocaust deniers as some may think. I also do not have to be reminded by the likes of a Weisel, Boteach or Netanyahu that it occurred. I lost the entire Paternal side of my family in Auschwitz and am reminded of this daily as I carry the name of my Grandfather who was one of the victims. Unlike Weisel, who made and continues to make million$ through his writings and guided tours through the various camps, I have dedicated my entire life to ensure that those horrors never happen again TO ANYONE. Boteach and Weisel both limit the ‘Never Again’ only to members of his own tribe.

The day before Prime Minister Netanyahu’s masterful oration to Congress, our organization, This World: The Values Network, held one of its most moving events yet, “The Meaning of ‘Never Again’: Guarding Against a Nuclear Iran,” in Washington. Elie Wiesel joined me along with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, to discuss the genocidal threats from Iran and the rise of global anti-Semitism.

No Holds Barred: At Bibi’s speech with Elie Wiesel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks with author Elie Wiesel after speech to US Congress in Washington. (photo credit:AMOS BEN-GERSHOM/GPO)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks with author Elie Wiesel after speech to US Congress in Washington. (photo credit:AMOS BEN-GERSHOM/GPO)

This week I traveled with Prof. Wiesel and his wife, Marion, and my wife, Debbie, to the prime minister’s speech as guests of Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner.

Elie Weisel and I took out ads in America’s major newspapers supporting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right to speak to the American Congress about the Iranian nuclear threat. The ads were beautiful and biblical, retelling the story of Esther and the choice she was given between alienating her king by speaking up for her people and remaining silent. She chose to save her people from annihilation.

The speech was magnificent and did much to vindicate those who put their reputations on the line to support it.

The day before Prime Minister Netanyahu’s masterful oration to Congress, our organization, This World: The Values Network, held one of its most moving events yet, “The Meaning of ‘Never Again’: Guarding Against a Nuclear Iran,” in Washington. Elie Wiesel joined me along with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, to discuss the genocidal threats from Iran and the rise of global anti-Semitism.

The event sought to lend support to Netanyahu’s campaign for a tougher stance against the Iranians’ nuclear program, particularly in light of their genocidal threats against the Jewish state; it was Elie Wiesel at his most eloquent.

We had scheduled the event to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the murder of Anne Frank, who died in the first week of March 1945 in Bergen-Belsen. The exact date is not known.

The most famous survivor of the Holocaust would commemorate its most famous victim.

And what better way to respect her memory than in protecting her people from the threat of yet another genocidal regime, yet again from Persia.

The event got off to a heated start as protesters from Code Pink stormed the floor, trying to disrupt the procession with banners and screams. From the time the event began, though, and from the time Wiesel began to speak, there was barely a sound. All were entranced by his soft-spoken, yet all so powerful, words of wisdom.

Wiesel spoke of the differences between today and his years in the Nazi death camps.

Today, we have friends who will protect us.

Back then, he lamented, America did far too little to protect the Jews of Europe, a failure which Cruz said underscored the importance of acting against Iran today. More important, Elie Wiesel pointed out that today we have an army dedicated to the protection of the Jewish People. Indeed, he spoke of the sense of wonder that overcame him the first time he saw an IDF uniform. Yet he also lamented the key similarity between now and then – the presence of anti-Semitism. It is the eternal companion of the Jewish People, yet, the professor offered, it can be ameliorated through education.

Wiesel spoke of how he truly believed that after the unspeakable crime of the Holocaust anti-Semitism would die down, perhaps be purged from the earth forever. Surely now the nations of the world, having seen where their hatred can lead, would forgo revulsion for the Jews. But there was no such thing. Wiesel said he was horrified to see it all return so viciously.

Wiesel stated his absolute support for the prime minister’s speech. He said that we must rely as much on the threats of our enemies as we do on the promises of our friends. We dare not downplay the danger posed by Iran. “Especially when their threats are repeated, we have to take them seriously,’’ he said. “I need proof that Iran has changed its policy. If the evil begins its work, don’t give it another chance.”

Cruz, too, took a hard line on Iran. The prime minister’s speech had been become mired in politics, yet “politics are not what matters now,” he asserted. “What matters now is the single greatest national security threat to the world today – and that is preventing a nuclear Iran.” Tehran could not be trusted in negotiations, he said, and “those who are negotiating with Iran fundamentally don’t understand who they are dealing with.

“History may well record it as a mistake and a catastrophe on the order of magnitude of Munich,’’ said Cruz, referring to the failed 1938 “peace” deal that allowed Hitler to annex parts of Czechoslovakia. “When our negotiators return with a promise of ‘peace in our time,’ we should believe this no more now than we should have believed it then,” he said.

The most moving part of the event came at the end. Wiesel told the spellbound audience: “Everything I have endured could have led me to choose despair… I could have said, ‘Goodbye world, you’ve rejected me. You’ve killed off my father and mother, and everyone I’ve loved.’ I could have moved to the desert. I could have chosen to forget and just to enjoy my life; after all, I deserved it. And yet, I rejected that.

I chose to remember and to teach.” He said that he rejected that path because he could not live a life of loneliness. “Only G-d is alone.”

He needed to embrace others, and help them when he could.

And indeed, he stood before us having just flown in to Washington at this critical moment, all to support the Jewish People in its time of need.

Right after the prime minister’s speech, Wiesel and I went to a reception with prime minister Netanyahu where the prime minister thanked him warmly for attending. In the speech itself he had been the only person the prime minister welcomed personally. As we left the reception, and Debbie and I escorted the Wiesels to their car, it was freezing cold with a snowy breeze. I saw Wiesel huddled against his overcoat as the wind blew around him. Before me I saw the great hero of the Jewish People, prepared to meet any threat his people faced, prepared to always speak out.

Prepared to speak truth to power. Adamant that Never Again must mean exactly that.

And as he left, I told him, in the endearing term I’ve used for him for 25 years, “Reb Eliezer. You are our prince and our great light to the nations. God bless you with long life and the best of health. I cannot imagine a world without you.”

BIBI’S OPPOSITION DANCES TO HIS SWAN SONG

He might have believed his speech was the best campaigning ever …. but his opposition is cashing in on it …

*

The Emporer's Nuke Clothes Image by Katie Miranda

The Emporer’s Nuke Clothes
Image by Katie Miranda

IN PHOTOS ~~ NEW YORKERS MARCH FOR PEACE WITH IRAN

SONY DSC
On March 3rd, the day of Netanyahu’s anti-Iran speech to the U.S. Congress, a group of activists gathered at Times Sq. to protest his war oriented speech. They stood in the Square with black and white signs which have become the icon of New York City protestors, and proclaimed loudly “No war on Iran: negotiate”.  From Times Sq. they  marched through Manhattan streets, through Grand Central Station, to the Israeli Consulate chanting  for a diplomatic solution.

When the marchers arrived at the Consulate the police tried to persuade them to demonstrate across the street.

The marchers refused to cross and proclaimed their legal- constitutional right to demonstrate peacefully at the Consulate. Meanwhile, across the street, another group, “Israelis  for a Sustainable Peace”, was also protesting Netanyahu’s polices.

Photos © by Bud Korotzer

Commentary by Chippy Dee

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

The other Demo

ISRAELIS FOR A SUSTAINABLE PEACE

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

IN ISRAEL ~~ THE DAY AFTER THE NIGHT BEFORE

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Abraham Lincoln

Just remember, he did not speak for me or most of Israel

Just remember, he did not speak for me or most of Israel

“After my short visit to the United States, I return to Israel knowing that many around the world heard what Israel has to say about the impending deal with Iran.”

Netanyahu Returns to Israel ‘Knowing Israel Has Been Heard’

Prime Minister lands back in Israel following speech to Congress on the dangers of a ‘bad deal’ with Iran.

Following his high-profile speech to Congress last night, Prime MinisterBinyamin Netanyahu returned to Israel Wednesday.

In a statement shortly after landing, Netanyahu said he was satisfied with his address and its reception.

“After my short visit to the United States, I return to Israel knowing that many around the world heard what Israel has to say about the impending deal with Iran,” he said in a statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office.

In an apparent response to claims by US President Barack Obama that his speech did not offer “practical alternatives” to the deal with Iran currently under discuss, the prime minister added: “In my speech before theCongress, I presented a practical alternative, which would impose tougher restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, extending Iran’s breakout time by years.

“I also called on the P5+1 to insist on a deal that would link the lifting of those restrictions to Iran’s ceasing its sponsorship of terrorism around the world, its aggression against its neighbors and its calls for Israel’s destruction.”

The responses he received were positive, he emphasized – from both sides of the isle.

“I heard encouraging responses from both Democrats and Republicans. They understood that the current proposal would lead to a bad deal and that the alternative is a better deal.”

The above is the extreme right viewpoint FROM

A more realistic view is presented by Jon Stewart

Bibi’s Congress Reception Was ‘Longest Blowjob a Jewish Man Has Ever Received’

The Editors at Mondoweiss added the following humour as well …. Click  HERE  to see report

Factchecking Netanyahu: An annotated guide to the Israeli P.M.’s speech to Congress

BIBI’S BEX ALERT

Full speech presented at end of this post

download

11 Lies Netanyahu Told

Congress on Iran

Getty Images / Lior Zaltzman

Getty Images / Lior Zaltzman

The long awaited for speech is now a part of the anus of history …. but the following points are the ones to be remembered according to Americans For Peace Now

11 Bogus Arguments Bibi Will Likely Be Making Against an Iran Deal

Prepare for Netanyahu’s Washington Speeches:
Listen for these 11 Bogus Arguments against an Iran Deal

Meir Dagan quoteOn March 3rd, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress, where he is expected to make the case against a nuclear deal with Iran, at least a deal that could result from the current negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 (the U.S., France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China, and the United Kingdom).  During this visit to Washington, Netanyahu will make other speeches and find other occasions to speak to the media in which he will no doubt, make the same case.  In anticipation of these speeches and statements, it is important to “un-pack” and debunk the bogus arguments against an Iran deal that Netanyahu is most likely to be making.  The eleven most prominent of those arguments are examined here.  The full document can be printed/downloaded here.

—————————————————————————————-

Additional sanctions and credible threats of military action can secure a better deal with Iran than current negotiations.

  • Decades of U.S. sanctions targeting the Iranian regime failed to achieve the goal of either compelling that regime to give up its nuclear program or causing it to fall.  Likewise, years of U.S. sanctions targeting the Iranian people have failed to achieve the goal of mobilizing Iranians to either force their government to change course or to overthrow it and replace it with a more pro-West alternative.
  • In recent years, multilateral, international sanctions have contributed to convincing the Iranian government to come to the negotiating table and offer real compromises with respect to its nuclear program. More U.S. sanctions today are far more likely to result in Iran’s abandoning the negotiating table than to result in Iran suddenly becoming amenable to a purported “better” deal – i.e., one involving elements that no Iranian regime would ever accept.
  • In such a case, it would be the U.S., not Iran, that would likely be blamed for the collapse of talks, leading to an erosion of international consensus on Iran sanctions that undermines the existing sanctions regime without achieving tangible Iranian compromises in return.
  • In such a case, Iranian hardliners who oppose any compromise with the West would be strengthened, with new U.S. sanctions and the collapse of talks bolstering the argument that the U.S. and its allies are not truly interested in a deal, but want regime change.  In such circumstances, it is far more likely that Iranian leaders will conclude that the urgent development of Iranian nuclear weapons is a necessary deterrent against such attack.

 —————————————————————————————-

The only good deal with Iran is one that leaves Iran with zero enrichment capacity.

  • Zero enrichment – the demand that not a single centrifuge is left spinning in Iran – is neither an achievable nor a necessary goal of negotiations.
  • It’s not achievable because just as P5+1 negotiators must get a deal they can “sell” to their constituencies, Iranian negotiators must be able to sell a deal to their own constituencies as meeting their own red lines (most notably, sufficient capacity for legitimate domestic energy production and legitimate R&D purposes, preserving what Iran views as a sovereign right to enrich, and assuring that Iranian pride in the nation’s scientific advances is left intact).
  • It’s not necessary because assuming “zero enrichment” is genuinely shorthand for “the best possible guarantee that Iran’s nuclear program will remain peaceful,” this goal can be achieved through a nuclear agreement that includes strict limits on Iran’s enrichment capacity and stringent safeguards and transparency with respect to Iran’s nuclear facilities and materials.
  • Insisting on “zero enrichment” guarantees that such limits and safeguards are absent.  Demands for zero enrichment as a condition for a deal are tantamount to rejecting any agreed-upon, negotiated solution with Iran.  Alternatives offered by advocates of a zero-enrichment red-line consist of fantasy and wishful thinking (“more pressure and Iran’s government will give in or be overthrown) and war-mongering (“military action can remove the threat of a nuclear Iran”).  Both approaches would likely exacerbate, rather than curb, the Iranian nuclear threat.

—————————————————————————————-

Any deal with Iran is a bad deal, because the mullahs can’t be trusted.

  • A nuclear deal with Iran would be grounded in ongoing rigorous inspections and verification mechanisms – not trust.  It is those rigorous inspections and verification mechanisms that would ensure that Iran lived up to its end of a deal.
  • Should Iran interfere with those inspections and verification mechanisms, or should those inspections and verification mechanisms reveal Iranian malfeasance, the international community would know immediately and have ample opportunity to prepare its response.
  • Without an agreement, those rigorous inspections and verification mechanisms would be absent.  The international community, recognizing that Iran cannot be trusted, would be left to worry and try to come up with policies and actions based on incomplete information.
  • Even with an agreement in place, the U.S. and international community will doubtless prepare and maintain contingency plans to address the possibility that Iran will renege on the deal – including planning for military action.

—————————————————————————————-

It would be wrong to make any nuclear deal with Iran unless that deal also held Iran accountable for its support for terrorism and extremism, in the region and beyond.

  • Achieving and implementing an agreement acceptable both to the P5+1 and Iran will require that some sanctions imposed on Iran – sanctions imposed as a direct consequence of concerns about Iran’s nuclear program – be removed.
  • However, an Iran nuclear deal would not change U.S. policy or impact U.S. sanctions with respect to Iran’s support for terrorism.  U.S. anti-terrorism legislation is for the most part separate from Iran nuclear legislation; anti-terrorist provisions that apply to countries around the world would continue to apply equally to Iran, even with a nuclear deal in place.
  • A nuclear deal with Iran could, potentially, open the door for improved U.S.-Iran relations – relations – which could eventually lead to improvements in other areas of concern to the U.S., including concerns linked to Iran’s support for terrorist organizations.
  • Those seeking to derail Iran talks or scuttle a nuclear deal with demands related to other issues are sending a message that their true goal is not mitigating the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, but regime change in Iran.  Such a message will likely strengthen hardliners, increasing the threat that Iran will indeed seek to acquire nuclear weapons and worsening Iranian behavior in the other spheres, including with respect to support for terrorism outside Iran’s borders.

—————————————————————————————-

It would be wrong to make any nuclear deal with Iran unless that deal also held Iran accountable for its terrible record with respect to human rights and civil liberties inside Iran.

  • An Iran nuclear deal would not change U.S. policy or impact U.S. sanctions with respect to Iran’s record on human rights abuses, democracy, or other non-nuclear-related matters.
  • By improving the conditions of Iranians overall, an Iran nuclear deal could strengthen domestic groups engaged in promoting human rights and civil liberties.  It could also strengthen Iranian political forces that are more open to change.  For these reasons, a nuclear deal is widely supported by human rights and democracy advocates within Iran.
  • The failure of Iran diplomacy – and what this failure would mean in terms of discrediting some of Iran’s more moderate political voices – could open the door to greater repression domestically.

—————————————————————————————-

A deal with Iran over its nuclear program will only strengthen and enrich an odious, extremist regime, and in doing so increase the threat of extremists everywhere.

  • The U.S. and its P5+1 partners are pursuing a nuclear agreement with Iran not as a gift to Iran, but because curtailing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is in the vital interests of the U.S. and the international community, including Israel.
  • A deal with Iran over its nuclear program would in no way imply U.S. approval for Iranian policies or acquiescence to Iranian bad behavior in any sphere.  A deal likewise would in no way limit the ability of the U.S. and the international community to criticize or pressure Iran – just like any other country.
  • Derailing talks or undermining a deal with Iran over its nuclear program will only strengthen those in Iran who believe that the West will not be satisfied with anything short of the overthrow of the current regime, and who view the militarization of Iran’s nuclear program as necessary to deter an attack.

—————————————————————————————-

One-year “breakout” time for Iran to become a nuclear state is way too short. If Iran decides to dash to get a bomb, it will already be too late.

  • “Breakout” time does NOT refer to the time required for Iran to become a nuclear-armed state.  It refers only to the time needed for Iran to produce enough weapons-grade uranium to fuel a single nuclear bomb.
  • To represent a threat as a nuclear-armed state, Iran would first have to produce sufficient weapons-grade uranium to fuel at least two bombs – one to test (to prove its nuclear capabilities) and the other to hold as a deterrent against retaliation. It would also have to build both bombs, build a working delivery system, and carry out a test.
  • An agreement would impede Iran’s ability to “dash” to become a nuclear-armed state by extending “breakout” time from the current 2-3 months to at least one year.  It would achieve this by prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium to a level (20%) at which it could be converted into weapons-grade uranium, and by imposing limits on the number and type of centrifuges Iran would be permitted to operate, as well as on the size of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium.
  • An agreement would also impede any future Iranian nuclear weapons “dash” by extending the time required for Iran to build actual bombs and a delivery system. It would achieve this by imposing international oversight and inspections that would diminish, in an unprecedented way, Iran’s ability to pursue nuclear activities with potential military dimensions, even covertly.
  • Absent an agreement, there will be no limits on Iran’s ability to build up its stockpile of enriched uranium. Absent an agreement, the U.S. and international community will revert to the longstanding status quo in which they have extremely limited and often imperfect information about what is going on inside Iran’s nuclear program.
  • Should Iran renege on a nuclear deal and pursue weaponization, a one-year “breakout” time ensures that the U.S. and the international community would have ample time and opportunity to respond.

—————————————————————————————-

The real issue isn’t “breakout” but “sneak-out.”  It doesn’t matter how many limits or safeguards you put into place – Iran will cheat and we will wake up one day to find Iran armed with nuclear bombs. 

  • “Sneak-out” is a danger with or without an agreement.
  • An agreement will put into place inspection, oversight and verification mechanisms – with respect to facilities, equipment and supplies – that ensure that a “sneak-out” would be far more difficult for Iran to achieve and far more likely to be detected.
  • Without an agreement, these inspection, oversight and verification mechanisms will not be implemented, ensuring that any “sneak-out” effort would be far more likely to go undetected.

—————————————————————————————-

The current negotiations are leaving in place too many Iranian centrifuges.  The more centrifuges left spinning, the greater the threat Iran poses.

  • Viewed in isolation, the number of centrifuges Iran is allowed to operate under an agreement does not provide a clear measure of breakout time.  It thus fails to adequately calculate the threat Iran would pose should it renege on a nuclear deal and shift to a militarized nuclear program.
  • To truly measure this threat requires examining the number of centrifuges, the types of centrifuges, and the size of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium under an agreement.
  • Consistent with the interim deal that gave birth to the current negotiations, Iran has already eliminated its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium gas – the feedstock required to produce weapons grade uranium.  By doing so, the immediate threat of Iranian “breakout” has been dramatically reduced by, in effect, emptying the cartoon bomb that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu displayed at the UN in 2014.
  • A nuclear deal with the P5+1 can be expected to significantly reduce and cap the number of centrifuges spinning in Iran.  A deal likewise can be expected to limit the type of centrifuges left spinning and to limit Iranian enrichment, such that Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb will not be refilled and such that weapons-grade uranium remains out-of-reach.
  • Without an agreement, the number of Iran’s centrifuges can be expected to grow, and the level at which uranium will be enriched can be expected to return to 20 percent, or go even higher.

—————————————————————————————-

A nuclear deal with Iran will leave Iran as a threat to the world and an existential threat to Israel, will sell out our allies in the Gulf, and will fuel a nuclear arms race in the region.

  • The prospect of Iran armed with nuclear weapons is indeed alarming, particularly to Israel, which exists in close proximity to Iran and which has over the years been the target of harsh threats from various Iranian political and religious figures.  It is also alarming to many countries in the Middle East, who see Iran as seeking regional dominance and meddling in their affairs.
  • Neither diplomacy nor military action can guarantee that Iran will not someday decide to pursue nuclear weapons. Iran long ago acquired the knowledge and expertise to do so.  International pressure and sanctions have impeded Iran’s nuclear program for years, but more importantly, leaders in Iran today have decided not to pursue an active nuclear weapons program.
  • A negotiated deal can bolster this decision, while further rolling back Iran’s nuclear capacity such that if Iran’s leaders someday have a change of heart, the U.S. and international community – including our friends and allies in the region – will have ample time and opportunity to take action.
  • A negotiated deal with Iran would not imply U.S. endorsement of Iranian bad behavior elsewhere in the region, nor would it imply that the U.S. was abandoning traditional allies in favor of warmer ties with Iran.
  • Rejecting a negotiated deal out-of-hand in favor of hardline demands for the complete eradication of Iran’s nuclear capacity is virtually guaranteed to have the oppose effect.  Making the complete elimination of any Iranian nuclear capacity the end goal of U.S. policy is tantamount to demanding that the U.S. go to war, and is likely to strengthen those in Iran who view the acquisition of nuclear weapons as necessary to deter such military action.  Such a policy would, in fact, be far more likely to fuel regional instability and an arms race than a negotiated deal would.

—————————————————————————————-

A deal that “sunsets” after 10 or 15 years is no good – it just means that Iran will wait and ready itself and then go nuclear the minute a deal ends.

  • Just as there is no possibility of a “zero enrichment” deal with Iran, there is no possibility of Iran agreeing to a “permanent” deal on its nuclear program.  Iran is in trouble right now because it has repeatedly violated the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), resulting in sanctions.  Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program are grounded in the understanding that by demonstrating compliance with all of its NPT obligations, Iran will no longer be in violation of the NPT and Iran’s tenure in the international doghouse – at least with respect to its nuclear program – can come to a close (at least so long as Iran remains in compliance).
  •  An Iran nuclear agreement – whether its provisions are in place for 10 years, or 15 years, or however many years are agreed on – would dramatically mitigate the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. For the period of the deal, the agreement would dramatically curtail Iran’s nuclear program, extending breakout time from a couple of months to a year, making it much harder for Iran to shift course and making the path to weaponization far longer than it would be without an agreement.
  • At the time that an agreement sunsets (and different provisions would likely sunset at different times), Iran would still remain a member of the NPT and subject to the requirements of that treaty.  Iran would also remain bound by an Additional Protocol to the treaty, granting UN inspectors greater authority in monitoring Iran’s nuclear program.  Following a decade or more of intrusive inspections and other oversight mechanisms, the U.S. and international community would at that time also be in a far stronger position to judge Iran’s actions and intentions vis-à-vis its nuclear program than they would have been without a deal. If, subsequent to a deal “sunsetting,” they determine that Iran’s leaders are shifting course and pursuing weaponization, the U.S. and international community will have ample time and opportunity to take action – and their decisions at that time will benefit from more than a decade of insights into Iran’s nuclear program and more than a decade of improved planning based on those insights.
  • Optimally, by the time a deal sunsets Iran would recognize the tangible benefits of continued curtailment of its nuclear program – benefits that would be imperiled if, in the period after an agreement “sunsets,” Iran decided to shift course and pursue weaponization of its nuclear program.

In case you missed the speech, here it is in full. As I side-note I must tell you that I always get a chuckle thinking about something my brother once told me. he was fascinated that the Prime Minister of Israel speaks a better English than I do ;)

*

And here’s what Ali Abunimah had to say about the speech … 

See video below

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his much trailed and politically divisive speech to the US Congress today, forcefully denouncing a possible international agreement that would place Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program under strict supervision.

Immediately afterwards, I spoke to The Real News Network’s Paul Jay to analyze the speech, including Netanyahu’s appeal to Biblical myths and Islamophobia in his attempt to derail US diplomacy.

Netanyahu’s speech came as US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, were in Switzerland to close the deal at high stakes negotiations backed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany.

President Barack Obama dismissed Netanyahu’s speech as offering nothing new and said the Israeli leader offered no alternatives to his efforts to reach a diplomatic agreement.

Approximately fifty Democratic members of Congress skipped Netanyahu’s speech, some after intense lobbying efforts by Palestinian rights advocates.

NETANYAHU’S LONG HISTORY OF CRYING WOLF ABOUT IRAN’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS

When Netanyahu gives his address to Congress, he can likely be counted on to say much the same things he’s been saying for the past two decades about an impending Iranian nuclear threat, and credulous pundits and politicians can be counted on to believe him.

Netanyahu outlining the Iranian nuclear danger via a cartoon drawing. (UN/file)

Netanyahu outlining the Iranian nuclear danger via a cartoon drawing. (UN/file)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU’S LONG HISTORY OF CRYING WOLF ABOUT IRAN’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS

BY MURTAZA HUSSAIN FOR

*

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to address the U.S. Congress tomorrow about the perils of striking a nuclear deal with Iran.  Netanyahu, not generally known for his measured rhetoric, has been vociferous in his public statements about the dangers of such compromise, warning that it will allow Iran to “rush to the bomb” and that it amounts to giving the country “a license” to develop nuclear weapons.

It is worth remembering, however, that Netanyahu has said much of this before. Almost two decades ago, in 1996, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress where he darkly warned, “If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind,” adding that, “the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.”

Almost 20 years later that deadline has apparently still not passed, but Netanyahu is still making dire predictions about an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon. Four years before that Congressional speech, in 1992, then-parliamentarian Netanyahu advised the Israeli Knesset that Iran was “three to five years” away from reaching nuclear weapons capability, and that this threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.”

In his 1995 book, “Fighting Terrorism,” Netanyahu once again asserted that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in “three to five years,” apparently forgetting about the expiration of his old deadline.

For a considerable time thereafter, Netanyahu switched his focus to hyping the purported nuclear threat posed by another country, Iraq, about which he claimed there was “no question” that it was “advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons.” Testifying again in front of Congress again in 2002, Netanyahu claimed that Iraq’s nonexistent nuclear program was in fact so advanced that the country was now operating “centrifuges the size of washing machines.”

Needless to say, these claims turned out to be disastrously false. Despite this, Netanyahu, apparently unchastened by the havoc his previous false charges helped create, immediately went back to ringing the alarm bells about Iran.

A 2009 U.S. State Department diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks described then-prime ministerial candidate Netanyahu informing a visiting Congressional delegation that Iran was “probably one or two years away” from developing weapons capability. Another cable later the same year showed Netanyahu, now back in office as prime minister, telling a separate delegation of American politicians in Jerusalem that “Iran has the capability now to make one bomb,” adding that alternatively, “they could wait and make several bombs in a year or two.”

In statements around this time made to journalists, Netanyahu continued to raise alarm about this supposedly imminent, apocalyptic threat. As he told The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg in a 2010 interview, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” adding, “that’s what is happening in Iran.”

In 2012 Netanyahu said in closed talks reported by Israeli media that Iran is just “a few months away” from attaining nuclear capabilities. Later that same year, he gave a widely-mocked address at the United Nations in which he alleged that Iran would have the ability to construct a weapon within roughly one year, while using a printout of a cartoon bomb to illustrate his point.

Despite this heady rhetoric, Netanyahu’s estimates of an imminent Iranian nuclear bomb have consistently been at odds with analyses made by his own intelligence agency. In 2011, departing Mossad intelligence chief Meir Dagan said in his final intelligence summary that, contrary to Netanyahu’s repeated statements at the time, an Iranian nuclear weapon is in fact not imminent, and that any military action against the country could end up spurring the development of such a weapon.

Just last week, leaked intelligence cables reported by Al Jazeera revealed that at roughly the same time in 2012 that Netanyahu was brandishing his cartoon bomb and telling the United Nations that Iran was close to obtaining a nuclear weapon, Israeli intelligence had actually determined the country was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons.”

The conclusion from this history is inescapable. Over the course of more than 20 years, Benjamin Netanyahu has made false claims about nuclear weapons programs in both Iran and Iraq, inventing imaginary timelines for their development, and making public statements that contradicted the analysis of his own intelligence advisers.

Despite this, he continues to be treated by lawmakers and media figures as a credible voice on this issue.

When Netanyahu gives his address to Congress, he can likely be counted on to say much the same things he’s been saying for the past two decades about an impending Iranian nuclear threat, and credulous pundits and politicians can be counted on to believe him.

BOTEACH ON DEFENSE OF IGNORANCE

“It is not up to Shmuley Boteach to make it appear this is the way the Jewish community treats our friends.”

A few days after ‘rabbi’ Boteach was denounced by almost every legitimate leader of the Jewish Community for his recent actions, specifically by putting the following ad in the New York Times last Saturday …

B-9ecSYU0AAx5qB (1)
… he comes to his own defense in the following video;

Pretty pathetic if you ask me!

Obviously, the condemnations stand. only Boteach himself disagrees.

Neither does Shmuley Boteach!

Neither does Shmuley Boteach!

Despite the idiot ‘rabbi’s rants …

Susan Rice Gets Warm Reception at AIPAC

Delegates Ignore Calls To Boycott NSA Chief Speech

By JTA

Getty Images

Getty Images

 A nuclear deal with Iran must include access to its nuclear facilities even after the expiry of restrictions, which would last at least ten years, Susan Rice, the U.S. national security adviser, told AIPAC.

Rice, addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Monday, the second day of its annual conference, said expectations that Iran would cease uranium enrichment altogether or that restrictions would be in place indefinitely, were unrealistic.

But she added that intrusive inspections would continue indefinitely.

“At the end of any deal, Iran would still be required to offer comprehensive access to its nuclear facilities and to provide the international community the assurance that it was not pursuing nuclear weapons,” she said.

Insisting on no enrichment would collapse the alliance the Obama administration has built to sanction and isolate Iran, factors which led Iran to agree to nuclear negotiations, Rice said.

“Let’s remember that sanctions have never stopped Iran from advancing its program,” she said.

Without a deal, Rice said, Iran would return to enrichment levels it achieved before the terms governing nuclear talks with the major powers imposed restrictions, and seek to expand its nuclear capability.

“And, we’ll lose the unprecedented inspections and transparency we have today,” she said.

Rice also addressed concerns about reports that any deal restricting Iranian nuclear activities would expire after 10-15 years.

“I know that some question a deal of any duration,” she said. “But, it has always been clear that the pursuit of an agreement of indefinite duration would result in no agreement at all.”

Restrictions would be in place at least for ten years, she said.

“A deal that extends for a decade or more would accomplish this goal better than any other course of action – longer, by far, than military strikes, which would only set back Iran’s program for a fraction of the time,” she said.

The AIPAC activists received Rice warmly, ignoring calls from some right wing figures to stay away from her talk after she said last week that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress was “destructive” of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Netanyahu and the Republican congressional leadership infuriated the Obama administration by arranging the speech, which will take aim at the White House’s Iran policies, without consulting with the White House or congressional Democrats.

AIPAC favors legislation that would trigger new sanctions should Iran walk away from the talks and would subject any deal to congressional review. President Obama Obama has pledged to veto the legislation.

“Additional sanctions or restrictive legislation enacted during the negotiation would blow up the talks, divide the international community, and cause the United States to be blamed for the failure to reach a deal,’” Rice said.

She earned cheers for saying emphatically that Obama would consider “all options,” a euphemism for military action, should the talks fail.

However, activists also pointedly cheered whenever Rice described the views of skeptics of the talks in order to rebut them.

“I know that some argue we should just impose sanctions and walk away” if the talks collapse, was one such unintended applause line. “I know that some of you will be urging Congress to insist that Iran forego its domestic enrichment capacity entirely” was another.

IN PHOTOS ~~ NETANYAHU’S WELCOME IN NEW YORK (NOT)

The Emporer's Nuke Clothes Image by Katie Miranda

The Emperor’s Nuke Clothes
Image by Katie Miranda

In a blinding snow fall, March 1st, scores of people gathered to protest the forthcoming speech on March 3rd of Benjamin Netanyahu to the U.S. Congress.

Speakers protested the occupation and settlement of Palestinian land and  the murderous deaths of thousands of Palestinians at the bloodied hands of the Zionists with the aid of American tax dollars. They noted the unity of the Congressnal extreme right  and  the Zionist policy of  pushing the U.S. into war with Iran. The speakers said that Netanyahu does not speak for all American Jews as he pretends.  The message to Netanyahu was ‘GET OUT OF THIS COUNTRY’

The snow might have been blinding but it did not stop us from seeing the truth!

Photos © by Bud Korotzer

Commentary by Chippy Dee

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

*

SONY DSC

HUMOROUS PHOTO OF THE DAY

Ya’think if I tell Congress that I won’t accept their 30 Billion Dollar$ next year they will bomb Iran?

unnamed (11)
Look who is coming to hear my speech …. it means allot when a Nobel Peace Prize recipient supports my calls for another war.

Elie Wiesel to attend Netanyahu speech to Congress

In full-page ad, Nobel Prize winner expresses firm support for ‘keeping weapons from those who preach death to Israel and America’

 

Full report HERE

NETANYAHU TO TELL THE ‘TRUTH’ ABOUT GAZA AND IRAN AT THE UN

What part of the truth do we not already know?

'Copyleft' by Carlos Latuff

‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

*

Image by Bendib

Image by Bendib

*

Netanyahu will speak at the UN on Monday. Before leaving, the prime minister vowed to “tell the truth of Israel’s citizens to the entire world.” 

“In my UN General Assembly speech and in all of my meetings I will represent the citizens of Israel and will – on their behalf – refute the slander and lies directed at our country,” Netanyahu went on to say.

*

Netanyahu heads to US to dispel Abbas, Rouhani’s ‘slander and lies’

Prime minister to meet with US President Obama, UN Secretary-General Ban and Indian Prime Minister Modi.

Ynetnews

*

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was set to leave for New York on Sunday morning to “refute the slander and lies” in Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s “deceptive speech” and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ “inciteful speech” at the UN General Assembly.

Netanyahu will speak at the UN on Monday. Before leaving, the prime minister vowed to “tell the truth of Israel’s citizens to the entire world.”

“In my UN General Assembly speech and in all of my meetings I will represent the citizens of Israel and will – on their behalf – refute the slander and lies directed at our country,” Netanyahu went on to day.

The prime minister will begin his visit on Sunday in a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This would be the first time in over a decade the prime ministers of Israel and India meet.

On Tuesday, Netanyahu will meet with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, followed by a meeting with US President Barack Obama on Wednesday.

While Rouhani only mentioned Israel once in his speech, saying that “Had we had greater cooperation and coordination in the Middle East, thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza would not have been fallen victim to Zionist regime’s aggression,” Abbas dedicated the lion’s share of his speech to Israel.

In the speech, Abbas called the previous round of fighting against Gaza “a series of absolute war crimes carried out before the eyes and ears of the entire world, moment by moment.” The devastation unleashed, he asserted, “is unmatched in modern times.”

He further stated that “the Israeli government undermined chances for peace throughout the months of negotiations,” referring to the failed 9-month-long peace process undertaken before the latest violence in Gaza. “Israel has consistently sought to fragment our land and our unity.”

Senior officials in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office denounced the allegations as “a speech of incitement filled with lies.”

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman also commented on Abbas’ speech Friday saying that, “Abu Mazen’s (Abbas’) words at the UN General Assembly sharply clarify again that Abu Mazen doesn’t want and can’t be a logical partner for a political settlement. Abbas isn’t a member of joint government with Hamas for no reason.”

The Foreign Minister said that “Abbas complements Hamas in his political terrorism and storytelling against Israel. So long as he’s chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas will lead to the continuation of the conflict. He has proved time and again that he is not a man of peace, but rather Arafat’s heir.”

 

#OperationForeverThreat ~~ THE IMMINENT ATTACK ON IRAN THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN

Still, the persistent false narrative that military strikes by either the United States or Israel may follow any potential failure to reach a deal continues to be repeated in the press. Of course, the fact that any such attack would be unequivocally illegal under international law is rarely noted in these assessments.

*

The Forever Threat: The Imminent Attack on Iran That Will Never Happen

Compiled by Nima Shirazi AT

 *

“Israel has drawn up plans for a combined air and ground attack on Iranian nuclear installations if diplomacy fails to halt Tehran’s atomic program…”

- Toledo Blade, March 14, 2005

*
Last month, amid the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, accomplished lunatic Louie Gohmert, a Republican congressman from Texas, took to the House floor and called for Iran to be attacked.

After insisting it is “time to cut off every dime of American money going to anyone who has any kind of relationship with Hamas or those killing in the Middle East, and especially in Israel,” Gohmert added, “It is time to bomb Iran’s nuclear capabilities. It is time for the United States, if we are not going to stop Iran’s nukes, then let Israel do it. A friend will not put another friend in this kind of jeopardy.”

Never mind that Iran has no “nukes” for anyone to “stop,” since it’s not actually making any and never has made or acquired any. Never mind that Iran has beenconsistently complying with the prescriptions of the multilateral deal agreed to last November by Iran and six world powers. Never mind that a number of recent articles in widely-read media outlets have addressed the myriad falsehoods and mythsresponsible for the past three decades of fear-mongering and propaganda about Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

Still, the persistent false narrative that military strikes by either the United States or Israel may follow any potential failure to reach a deal continues to be repeated in the press. Of course, the fact that any such attack would be unequivocally illegal under international law is rarely noted in these assessments.

Pronouncements that Iran is close to having a nuclear bomb, or close to being bombed, are ubiquitous in the media. Threats against Iran – by both the United Statesand Israel – have been made for decades, despite routine Iranian dismissal of such rhetoric as mere bluster.

The frequency of such threats – always reported with fever-pitched alacrity by a dutiful and prostrate press – is alarming.

Not only is an American or Israeli attack on Iran always just around the bend – regardless of the state of diplomacy or intelligence assessments – but the media consistently provides fantasy scenarios by which its audience can imagine, replete with maps and graphics, just how such war crimes would take place.

Over twenty years ago, a report in the Independent (UK) published on June 23, 1994 revealed that the Pentagon had inked a deal to provide Israel with advanced F-15I fighter jets, designed to “enable the Israelis to carry out strikes deep into Iraq and Iran without refuelling.”

Three years later, on December 9, 1997, a The Times of London headline screamed, “Israel steps up plans for air attacks on Iran.” The article, written by Christopher Walker, reported on the myriad “options” Israel had in confronting what it deemed “Iran’s Russian-backed missile and nuclear weapon programme.”

Such reports have been published ever since. Of course, neither the United States nor Israel will attack Iran, regardless of the success or failure of negotiations, but such reports (often the result of strategically timed “leaks” by anonymous government officials) serve to not only to intentionally torpedo diplomacy but also mislead the public  into believing the absurdly false narrative surrounding the Iranian nuclear program; that is, either Iran must be bombed or it will acquire a nuclear arsenal. This is nonsense.

Below are some of the constant headlines we’ve seen over the past dozen years promoting such propaganda. When will this madness – this pathological obsession with the false necessity of dropping bombs and the righteous inevitability of killing people – stop?

The Times of London, November 5, 2002:

AFP, October 11, 2003:

The Scotsman, November 22, 2003:

New York Daily News, November 23, 2003:

The New York Times, August 21, 2004:

Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2004:

The Jerusalem Post, January 21, 2005:

The Independent, January 27, 2005:

Toledo Blade, March 14, 2005:

Associated Press, December 4, 2005:

The Straits Times, December 17, 2005:

Associated Press, January 22, 2006:

Fox News, June 4, 2006:

The Telegraph, February 24, 2007:

Associated Press, March 21, 2007:

Newsweek, December 19, 2007:

The Daily Star (Lebanon), May 30, 2008:

USA Today, June 6, 2008:

The Telegraph, June 7, 2008:

The Age, June 9, 2008:

Fox News, June 20, 2008:

The Telegraph, June 23, 2008:


ABC News, July 1, 2008:

Ha’aretz, July 2, 2008:

AFP, July 30, 2008:

Associated Press, August 7, 2008:

CBS News, August 7, 2008:

Wired, April 2, 2009:

Salon, April 14, 2009:

The Times of London, April 18, 2009:

The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2009:

The Washington Post, July 2, 2009:

CBS News, July 27, 2009:

Los Angeles Times, August 30, 2009:

Talking Points Memo, August 31, 2009:


Fox News, September 21, 2009:

Huffington Post, September 28, 2009:

Ynet, October 9, 2009:

The Washington Times, October 22, 2009:

Ha’aretz, November 6, 2009:

The New York Times, December 23, 2009:

Newsmax, April 2, 2010:


The Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2010:

AFP, June 12, 2010:

TIME, July 15, 2010:

The Weekly Standard, July 26, 2010:


Christian Science Monitor, August 12, 2010:

The Spectator (UK), August 12, 2010:


Christian Science Monitor, August 13, 2010:

The Weekly Standard, August 14, 2010:

The Week, August 17, 2010:

New York Daily News, August 17, 2010:

The Atlantic, August 18, 2010:

Newsmax, September 2, 2010:

The Atlantic, November 28, 2010:

AFP, November 29, 2010:

The Australian, November 30, 2010:

The Washington Times, December 3, 2010:

The Australian, January 13, 2011:

Associated Press, May 30, 2011:

Ha’aretz, September 28, 2011:

Associated Press, November 2, 2011:

The Daily Beast, November 2, 2011:

The Guardian, November 2, 2011:

The Telegraph, November 6, 2011:

Reuters, November 9, 2011:

Arutz Sheva, November 10, 2011:


Chicago Tribune, November 13, 2011:

Arutz Sheva, December 1, 2011:

The New York Times, January 25, 2012:

Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012:

The Washington Post, February 2, 2012:

Reuters, February 3, 2012:

Foreign Affairs, February 23, 2012:

Congressional Research Service, March 27, 2012:


CNN, March 30, 2012:

Salon/GlobalPost, May 9, 2012:


The Telegraph, May 17, 2012:

CBN News, May 24, 2012:


The Blaze, July 8, 2012:

Reuters, August 10, 2012:

The Times of Israel, August 11, 2012:

The Daily Mail, August 21, 2012:

The Jewish Chronicle, August 27, 2012:

Forbes, September 30, 2012:

National Journal, October 9, 2012:


The Telegraph, October 9, 2012:

Voice of America, December 19, 2012:


The New York Times, January 26, 2013:

The Times of Israel, March 14, 2013:

Newsmax, April 13, 2013:

The Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2013:

Ha’aretz, May 3, 2013:

The Times of Israel, May 9, 2013:

Al Jazeera English, July 17, 2013:

The Atlantic, August 1, 2013:


Washington Examiner
, September 18, 2013:


Gatestone Institute, October 7, 2013:

Financial Times, November 17, 2013:

CNN, November 19, 2013:

The Times of London, November 26, 2013:

Defense News, December 4, 2013:


CBS News, December 6, 2013:


ThinkProgress, January 2, 2014:

Foreign Affairs, January 7, 2014:

Ha’aretz, March 19, 2014:

Associated Press, March 21, 2014:

The National Interest, April 16, 2014:

Iran Times, May 16, 2014:


Defense News
, June 8, 2014:

Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), June 12, 2014:

The Raw Story, July 23, 2014:

 

TALK ABOUT CHUTZPAH! ~~ LOOK WHO’S BEEN SELLING ARMS TO IRAN

First, the definition …

*

And the Award goes to …

*

But first, the whitewash …

The United States was aware of the shipments “in real time,” Israel’s Channel 2 news reported, and was thus able to thwart them. The TV report added that “it has to be assumed that Israel knew too, and was updated by the United States.” Finally, the Channel 2 report suggested that this may have been some kind of sting operation against the Iranians, since “it could be that whoever did this was not acting against Israel’s interest.”
*

Israeli Arm Dealers Planned to Breach Iran Embargo

  • By Umberto Bacchi

iran fighter jet

Reuters
US and Greek authorities reportedly foiled an attempt by Israeli-based arm dealers to smuggle spare parts for fighter jets to Iran

US and Greek authorities foiled an attempt by Israeli-based arm dealers to smuggle spare parts for a fighter jet to Iran via Greece in violation of an international embargo, a newspaper has revealed.

Two separate shipments containing replacement parts and ammunition for F-4 Phantom aircraft were seized by Greek officials in December 2012 and April 2013, Kathimerini newspaper reported.

The daily said it had access to a probe carried out by the Homeland Security in the US in cooperation with the drugs and weapons unit of Greece’s Financial Crimes Squad.

According to the probe, both cargos originated from the Israeli town of Binyamina-Giv’at Ada, about 60km north of Tel Aviv.

They were shipped to Greece by courier, but investigators believe the final destination was Iran, as Tehran has a large fleet of F-4 Phantoms.

Containers loaded with spare parts for the jet fighter were received by a phoney company registered under the name Tassos Karras SA in Votanikos, near central Athens.

A contact number for the company belonged to a British national residing in Thessaloniki who could not be immediately traced, Kathimerini reported.

An Athens court ordered the seized cargo be handed to US authorities in November.

Sanctions against Iran were imposed by the US after the Islamic revolution in 1979. The embargo was later adopted by other nations and expanded in 1995. The UK has had a national arms embargo in place on Iran since March 1993.

*

Source

Related Reports …. Here and Here

*

It all boils down to …

*

And the bunk is …

DERSHOWITZ ADVISES ISRAEL TO IGNORE INTERNATIONAL LAW

Once again zionists show their contempt for humanity …

*50356_2209445185_8208_n

*
Esteemed advocate Alan Dershowitz says that Israel should ignore international law when deciding how to deal with Iran.
*
*

Dershowitz: Ignore International Law

Advocate urges Israel to act as it sees fit on Iran. International law is ‘a construct in the mind of a bunch of left wing academics.’
*
*

Esteemed advocate Alan Dershowitz says that Israel should ignore international law when deciding how to deal with Iran.

International law is “a construct in the mind of a bunch of left wing academics,” he said, in a lecture at the Institute of National Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv last week “There is no basis for international law in any reality. It’s not based on legislation. Much of it is not based on treaty. It is the ultimate exercise in elitist nondemocracy.”

Iran does not believe that its nuclear weapons program is in danger of being attacked, he estimated. It wrongly believes, he said, that Israel will not attack it unless the US gives it a green light.

The interim deal made with Iran in Geneva was “a mistake,” Dershowitz said. Iran “got what it wanted…China is already there in Tehran seeking business. Other countries are there seeking business. They see the end of the sanctions regime. The words may not be be that but the music is certainly in that direction.”

Iran has given up nothing in the deal, he explained. They are still developing rockets that can carry nuclear weapons. There has been no slowing down in the work of enrichment centrifuges, no ceasing of the Arak heavy water plant’s activity, and the Iranians see the deal as a victory.

The big difference between the US and Israel in this matter stems from the fact that the US is thousands of miles away from the Middle East, whereas for Israel, the Iranian threat is a much more serious one, said Dershowitz.

*

From my zio-crap file

 

REVELATION OF THE DAY PROVES THAT BIBI IS FULL OF BOVINE POO

Bovine-excrement-meter-animation
*
Bibi’s acting of late will definitely not be material for an Academy Award this year. He tried his best to look surprised, but apparently this failed when the Associated Press exposed what really happened. Is it possible that the ‘victim card’ was pulled out of the deck too soon this time? It certainly appears that way ….
*
NetanyahuUNspeechIranWolfSheepClothing
*
Obama advised Netanyahu of Iran talks in September
New AP report reveals long road to Geneva agreement, including number of high-level clandestine meetings by US, Iranian officials. Report claims Netanyahu knew talks, negotiations were being held before Obama-Rohani phone call*

Netanyahu’s immediate public reaction betrayed no surprise, but a day later he launched a full-frontal attack on Iran, delivering a blistering speech at the UN General Assembly in which he said the Islamic republic was bent on Israel’s destruction and accused Rohani of being a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

*

The full AP report can be read HERE, a report which coincidentally was ignored by most of the zio press. So much for ‘Democracy’ in the ‘only one in the Middle East’ ;)

*

The good news is that Bibi isn’t getting the support he hoped for with his latest antics. This can be seen HERE and HERE.

*

Hopefully the so-call Iran Deal will usher in the end of the deal we know as Bibi.

BIBITOON ~~ BLOWING HIS TOP

But ready to blow up the world …..

*

Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

netanyahu-iran-p51-nuclear-deal

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,208 other followers